-F
t
iKo
q ."^ .^ ^. ti^'>'A^ 1
Given By
XJ. S. S":PT. or nOrv^Av
■fFNTS
3J
v>^
\1
''SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY
ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
ON
S. 23, S. 1254, and S. 1606
LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO CURB COMMUNIST PENETRATION
AND DOMINATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
DECEMBER 21, 1953, JANUARY 14, 15, 22, FEBRUARY 18,
19, 26, MARCH 3, 4, AND 25, 1954
Printed for the Committee on the Judiciary
SOBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTEATION OF THE INTEENAL SECUEITY
ACT AND OTHER INTEENAL SECURITY LAWS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
ON
S. 23, S. 1254, and S. 1606
LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO CURB COMMUNIST PENETRATION
AND DOMINATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
DECEMBER 21, 1953, JANUARY 14, 15, 22, FEBRUARY 18,
19, 26, MARCH 3, 4, AND 25, 1954
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43903 WASHINGTON : 1954
Boston Public Library
Superintendent of Documents
JUN16 1954
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota, Chairman
ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin
WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana
ARTHUR V. WATKINS. Utah
ROBERT C. HENDRICKSOX, New Jersey
EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois
HERMAN WELKER, Idaho
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland
PAT McCARRAN, Nevada
HARLEY M. KILGORE, West Virginia
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi
ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee
OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina
THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., Missouri
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security
Act and Other Internal Securitt Laws
WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana, Chairman
ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah PAT McCARRAN, Nevada
ROBERT C. HENDRICKSON, New Jersey JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi
HERMAN W^ELKER, Idaho OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
Charles P. Grimes. Counsel
Task Force Investigating Communist Domination of Certain Labor
Organizations
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland, Chairman
HERMAN WELKER, Idaho PAT McCARRAN, Nevada
Richard Arbxs, Special Counsel
II
CONTENTS
Statement or testimoiiv of — Page
Kader, George Edward 145-150, 170-174
Parron, William J 307-319
Bouhvare, Lemuel R 287-319
Communications 439-453
Coimtrvman, Veru 327-409
Denham. Robert N 85-107
Drummond, Harold 197-212
Fitzgerald. Albert J 212-229,238-275
Frank, Nelson 109-133
Goldwater, Hon. Barrj^_. 45-84
Mahon, Don . __ 276-286
McDowell. Arthur G 1-44
Miller, William W 175-187
Nixon, Russ . 229-256
O'Brien, Daniel 1 410, 424^38
Sears, Barnabas F 151-169
Selly, Joseph P 320-376
Stone, Adm. Fllery W ^ _ 188-196
Witt, Nathan 410,418^25,429-439
Index 455
in
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS
MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1953
United States Senate,
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration
or the Internal Security Act and Other Internal
Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington^ D. C.
executive session — confidential
The task force of the subcommittee met at 10 : 15 a. m., pursuant to
call, in the office of Senator Butler, Senate Office Building, Senator
Jolm M. Butler presiding.
Present : Senator Butler.
Present also : Richard Arens, special counsel ; Frank W. Schroeder,
professional staff member ; and Edward R. Duffy, investigator.
Senator Butler. The subcommittee will be in order.
Will you hold up your right hand? In the presence of Almighty
God, do you solemnly promise and declare the evidence you will give
to this task force of the Internal Security Committee of the United
States Senate will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God ?
Mr. McDowell. I do.
TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR G. McDOWELL, UPHOLSTERERS INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION or NORTH AMERICA, A. E. OF L., PHILADELPHIA,
PA.
Senator Butler. Will you state your full name, address, and
occupation ?
Mr. McDowell. I am Arthur G. McDowell, director of the depart-
ment of civic education and governmental affairs of the Upholsterers
International Union of North America, A. F. of L. My office address
is 1500 North Broad Street, Philadelphia.
Mr. Arens. You are testifying here under subpena that has been
served upon you ?
Mr. McDowell. Yes.
Mr. Arens. How long have you been engaged in your present
occupation ?
Mr. McDowell. I have been engaged in this and other staff posi-
tions with the Upholsterers International Union since June of 1945.
Mr. Arens. Will you kindly give us a thumbnail sketch of the Up-
holsterers International Union, A. F. of L., what is it, what is its
2 SUBVERSrV'E INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
membership, where is it located, and a word about the organization,
if you please ?
th'. McDowell. The Upholsterers International Union is a union
founded at the beginning of its first continuous existence in Chicago
in 1892. Yet it is at present composed of between fifty-fiTe and sixty
thousand members in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.
That membership is primarily engaged in the related trades of up-
holstered furniture, wood furniture, burial caskets, mattress and
bedding, and canvas products.
Senator Butler. Could you break it down as to membership in the
United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico?
Mr. McDowell. The membership in the United States is somewhat
in excess of 50,000; the membership in Canada and Puerto Rico is
marginal.
Mr. Arens. Mr. McDowell, is the Upholsterers International cer-
tified under the NLRB?
Mr. IMcDowELL. Yes, it has been from the very beginning of the
act.
Mr. Arexs. Now will you kindly give us a personal sketch of your
own life, Mr. McDowell, Avith particular reference to your professional
activities in the trade-union movement ?
INIr. McDowell. I have been engaged professionally in activities
directly connected with the trade-union movement since 1929.
Mr. Arens. May I interrupt you. If you would just give us a little
brief personal history of where and when you were born and a little
bit of your education, and a thumbnail sketch of your life, if you
please.
Mr. McDowell. I was born in Pittsburgh in 1909, of a family which
has been in western Pennsylvania for quite a few generations. I
graduated from high school in the town of Butler, Pa., and I was
active at that time in civic and other affairs. I was the recipient of
the DAR award in American history, for example. Throughout that
high-school period I Avas very active in organizational aff'iirs. That
included the YMCA, Acting scoutmaster of the county's No. 1 Scout
troo]:). I Avas at that time president of the Epworth League or the
Methodist's young people's society of the church in Butler, Pa.
But in 1927, upon graduation from high school, I became person-
ally interested in one of the historic radical causes of that year, namely,
the controversial Sacco-Vanzetti case. I started employment as an
office worker with the Gulf Refining Co.. in March 1027, and, as a re-
sult of my very intense expression on the question of this controversial
case, which became somewhat a cause celebre in labor circles across
the world, I was dismissed by the Gulf Refining Co. in October of that
year. I had no organizational connections of any kind at that time.
That was purely an individual expression of views and resentment
at injustice.
HoAA'ever, in 1928, although not yet a voter, I became interested in
the Social ist Party. Although I did not vote that year, I would proba-
bly have voted for Norman Thomas had I been able to do so.
Prior to this time, because of my interest in the field of labor and
social justice, in the town in which I had graduated from school,
Butler, the Methodist pastor had enrolled me in the Methodist Federa-
tion for Social Service. This organization was actually only the first
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 6
affiliation prior to my contact with the Socialist Party with any radi-
cal organization. I did not identify it as a radical organization, be-
cause I was enrolled in it by my pastor, who thought it would be a
good thing.
By 1928, I was identified with but not a member of the Socialist
Party. In the fall of 1928 I organized and became the ]iresident of a
student League for Industrial Democracy chapter at the University of
Pittsburgh, the League for Industrial Democracy being a Socialist
student organization, not affiliated with the party but in general allied
with it.
In the fall of 1928, I entered the University of Pittsburgh, having
previouslv had a year at night school in the downtown university,
1927-28. *
On the camj)us I joined the Liberal Club, organized approximately
2 years previously, following a meeting by Norman Thomas on the
campus. But in this Liberal Club I had my first contacts with actual
Connnunists. This occurred in the late fall or early spring of 1928
or 1929. Although not yet a full sophomore, I was nominated for
presidency of this club. It was understood that there was no opposi-
tion, but at the last moment a chap who was identified in the club as a
Conununist was not only nominated but was elected by what was ob-
viously a premeeting caucus determination. This individual who
defeated me was a person going by the name of William Albertson,
A-1-b-e-r-t-s-o-n, living with his mother in Pittsburgh. His father
was the superintendent of a Soviet textile factory in Leningrad, and
this was common knowledge among his fellow students. Albertson
was subsequently, in 1952, indicted under the Smith Act, so he is cur-
rent.
In the spring of 1929, I became interested through the American
Civil Liberties Union in the Mooney-Billings case as a labor cause,
and the Liberal Club, with my consent as a board member, arranged
a meeting on the Universitj' of Pittsburgh campus on the Mooney-
Billings case. The meeting was subsequently disallowed by the author-
ities, and a clash resulted with the University of Pittsburgh author-
ities, the consequence of which was that William Albertson, myself,
and a graduate assistant who was not directly connected, by the name
of Frederick Woltman, now employed by the New York World- Tele-
gram, and so forth, were expelled. This case involved me in fairly
close collaboration in the courts in the course of legal proceedings with
William Albertson and others who either at the time or subsequently
I have identified as Communists or Communist sympathizers.
However, 2 weeks after the climax of events at the University of
Pittsburgh, I was employed by the Teamsters International Union
to prepare a study for them of a strike they were conducting in the
dairy industry in the city of Pittsburgh, and in the course of conduct-
ing some meetings to publicize this study, public meetings, I found my
erstwhile associate, Mr. Albertson, trying to break up said meetings
and trying to disrupt the relationship between the unionmen on strike
and their officers from the international union. This was my first in-
sight into the actual nature of Communist interest in industrial dis-
turbance. Their sole interest in this concern was to inject themselves
into the situation, and the person who headed up their injection was
this chap who 2 weeks before I had been fighting shoulder to shoulder
with in our dispute with the University of Pittsburgh authorities.
4 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
I might say that 1 year later tlie University of Pittsburgh offered
me unconditional reinstatement in the university, but due to surviving
loyalty to the other associates, who were not included in the offer, I
declined and did not accept this offer.
This was extended to me by Mr. J. Steele Gough, who was the execu-
tive secretary of the university, on behalf of the board of trustees at
the time. Mr. Gough is now head of the Falk Foundation in Pitts-
burgh.
Just prior to this incident at the University of Pittsburgh, I was in
the city of New York, in the spring of 1929, for the first time. I
visited the headquarters of the Methodist Federation for Social
Service. There I met the secretary, a little old woman by the name of
Winifred Chappell. To my rather intense surprise, she began to re-
late an incident which she was personally a witness to a few days
before, when she had attended a Communist Party meeting in New
York City, at which there had been violence involving the stabbing
of an alleged Trotskyite. This whole incident, somewhat shockingly,
was related in the gayest of spirits as if it were just part of an eve-
ning's entertainment. There was no concern about potential murders
in a political meeting. As far as I know, that finished me up with the
Methodist Federation for Social Service. I never renewed my mem-
bership after the beginning of 1930, although I did see this Winifred
Chappel again in the summer of 1929 in one of the summer camps or
institutes arranged by the Metliodist Church, where she was teaching
classes, and at that time she further sought to interest me specifically
in the concern of various people with the allegedly inspiring events
taking place in Soviet Russia. I did not see her after that summer.
In the summer of 1929, I did work for the Finnish Social Demo-
cratic Federation directing a young people's labor college for their
children in Ashtabula, Ohio, and Daisytown, Pa. In August of 1929,
after the conduct of this series of labor college sessions, I was called
on the telephone by one Horace B. Davis, who at that time represented
himself and was quite possibly a sort of radical Quaker liberal, but
who either was at that time or has subsequently become a Communist
Party person to my knowledge, operating in various unions, having
been shoved out of Cumberland, Md., on the insistence of the CIO
Textile Workers for his Communist activities; most recently, I be-
lieve, at the University of Kansas City. Professor Davis, as he was
known, called me on the telephone and asked if I would act as an
observer for the Civil Liberties Union local committee in Pittsburgh
at a series of Communist meetings on the north side of Pittsburgh
where there was alleged to be danger of police violence. In accord-
ance with this request I did attend this meeting, seeing a demonstra-
tion in one of the north side parks, which then adjourned to a mass
meeting in the International Labor and Socialist Lyceum, which has
since disappeared. At that time it was well known and was the head-
quarters of the Communist Party in Pittsburgh.
On the way from that meeting, I spoke to one officer whom I knew
from the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, the waiters' local,
a man by the name of Zeno. This individual was a professional labor
spy, as we now identify them. He worked for private detective agen-
cies engaged in industrial espionage.
My attendance at that meeting was reported to the Gulf Refining
Co.. with whom I was at that time on leave of absence in their service
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 5
station division, and I was blacklisted in the city of Pittsburgh for the
balance of that year.
In tlie spring of 1930 I was engaged as an organizer by the So-
cialist Party, by the Pennsylvania State committee. I was not ac-
tually, to show the looseness of this particular organization, a member
of the Socialist Party until after I was employed as a full-time or-
ganizer. At that time it was suggested to me that I also join the
party, which I did. That membership continued continuously from
that time until March of 1941, when I publicly resigned from the
Socialist movement.
I functioned as an organizer for the Socialist Party, and my next
establishment of contact with the Communist, William Albertson,
was as a result of an incident that occurred at the State convention
of the Socialist Party in May of 1930. At this time T personally
sponsored a resolution condemning the British Labor Party Govern-
ment for the use of troops against Gandhi in India. The issue was
very bitter because of the pride which all Socialists took in the British
Labor Government, and the resolution caused a considerable division
and could not have been defeated. There was publicity on this
dispute.
A few weeks later in Pittsburgh, on a downtown street, for the
first time since I had seen him trying to break up my meeting for
the teamsters union in 1929, I saw this William Albertson, who then
gave me an index into the psychology of this particular group by
asking why, when I had so many supporters at this State convention,
did I not organize them and lead them out of that organization and
split and form an organization of my own.
Beginning in 1931, 1 was engaged jointly as newspaper correspond-
ent and publicity director for the two Socialist members of the
house of representatives in the Pennsylvania State Legislature and,
as such, I was a member of the Legislative Correspondents Associa-
tion in my capacity as a correspondent, of course, not as a publicity
man. I served in that capacity during the regular session of 1931,
the special session of 1931, the special session of 1932, and regular
session of 1933, during the period that that legislature was in session.
In the early summer of 1931, upon the adjournment of the legisla-
ture, I returned to Pittsburgh to find a demonstration or starvation
strike of miners being waged in western Pennsylvania counties. This
strike was not an industrial dispute in the normal sense, inasmuch
as the majority of the so-called strikers were actually unemployed
miners, but the unemployment and food situation was actually so
acute that these miners, having no organization, expressed their re-
sentment in terms of a strike, although they had no jobs for the most
part. This was an ideal place for the Communists to operate, and
they had moved in under the heading of their National Miners Union,
because of the sympathy for the miners which is very strong in all
sections of the labor movement as such, and because of the general
community sympathy for the plight of the miners who, living in
their small towns, had none of the even minor charity that a small
city affords because there was nobody in their town except miners,
and they were all unemployed and pretty hungry.
It was an ideal situation from the Communist point of view, but
the Socialist Party office, after consulting with some of the members
6 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
of the American Federation of Labor in the Pittsburo;h Central Labor
Union, decided that in spite of the Communist leadership, we could
not let the miners <ro unaided. We therefore orfranized the labor and
Socialist minei-s relief fund, and we shipped hundreds of tons of food
and clothing into this so-called strike area, which was actually not a
strike area at all. However, I place emphasis upon this because it is
a pattern of Communist activity which could enable me in 1946, which
was 15 years later, in discussing the experience in Communist coun-
tries with the UNRRA, the ITnited Nations Relief and Rehabilitation,
and the political use of relief, I found there was not a single instance
that they experienced that was not duplicated in the Communist rela-
tionship in this relief field in Pittsburgh in 1931. The pattern was so
absolute and mechanical.
For example, we discovered — we liappened to rent offices iii the same
building in Pittsburgh, and one day, first in the Communist press and
then in a release in the daily press, there was a charge that we were,
as a labor and Socialist relief committee, using the alleged similarity
of names, cashing checks and contributions actually aimed at their
miners relief committee.
We had some experienced old hands wlio had fought the Commu-
nists in 1919, who immediately said, "This is an evidence, from all
past experience with the Connnunists. that they are doing precisely
this because they only charge you with doing a discreditable thing if
they themselves are already engaged in it.*' We therefore got hold
of a postal inspector and moved in on tlieir office and found that they
had been doing precisely this. Checks had forged endorsements,
using the similarity of names, and had been cashed and were being
cashed and were in their office at that time, and we forced them to
make restitution.
Throughout the miners' area, going out on our relief trucks, we
found, for example, that on 1 or 2 occasions the relief stations scat-
tered through the western Penns^dvania mining area did not get aid
from the Communist ti'ucks some mornings. The shipments didn't
come in or the money ran low. On those morninjxs they were crude
enough to go through with their trucks and leave large bimdles of
Daily Workers in empty relief stations where the potato barrel was
empty. They left Daily Workers. This is an example of the type of
callousness Avhich is possible in their type of operation.
At this time we had a rather interesting experience also with the
attitude of the liberal magazines in a contest involving Communists
as against some other type of labor organization in this area. The
Nation magazine sent a correspondent iiito Pittsburgh, and he pro-
ceeded to consult the Communist office and wrote an article completely
false, alleging that the labor and Socialist relief fund was giving relief
only to Socialist miners. We had at that time exactly six members
of the Socialist Party in that entire Pittsburgh mining area, and we
were shipping tons of food. But we did discover as part of the
Communist pattern that this was exactly what was being done to
recruit members to the Communist Party irom this trade-union front,
the National Miners Union, in the course of this strike. Thev were
told if they signed a party card, they would be sure to get these relief
shipments which were being raised by private solicitation across the
country.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 7
In the late fall of 1931 and beginning in the winter of 1932, we
were still shipping relief as we were making arrangements with
authorities for the gradual transfer of these miners' relief kitchens to
public responsibility because the fiction of a strike had disappeared, but
the people's needs still remained and public authorities were beginning
to take on this responsibility, and we arranged that transition. Before
that transition occurred, we were repeatedly, particularly in Washing-
ton County, in several meetings of this miners union, from which all
the Communists and their various relief and other functionaries had
disappeared for some 2 or 3 months before, but these same locals were
in receipt of appeals for the West Virginia-Ohio Miners Relief Com-
mittee, these hungry miners, because the Communists had started a
new operation in the West Virginia -Ohio area stimulating the same
sort of strike. But they were sending to these hungry miners — whom
they left without leadership, help, assistance at all — appeals to con-
tribute to their new scene of operations.
This was extremely interesting, because all the details, the charges
of falsification, diversion of funds, and so forth, which actually repre-
sented what the Communists themselves engaged in. were typical.
The story in the Nation magazine was protested by Norman Thomas
at the time. An individual at the University of Pittsburgh was as-
signed by the Nation to investigate and get a correction. That indi-
vidual's name was Colston E. Warne at the University of Pittsburgh.
Colston E. Warne, subsequently transferring to Amherst College, had
been one of our advisers during our student conflict with the university
authorities in 1929, but we had found that he did not deal with us
aboveboard. He consulted ostensibly with myself and the other stu-
dent who was known to be a Communist, but we found out later that
he met privately with the said Communist student and there was where
the decisions were actually made as to the strategy in the fight on the
alleged civil-liberties issue in the ITniversity of Pittsburgh. However,
we did not know this until a few years subsequently.
This time, Colston Warne was assigned bv the Nation to investigate
this allegedly false story that they had printed on this miners' relief
situation. He investigated Init, strangely enough, at the time no
report was ever made by the Nation as a result of his investigation,
although the facts were clearly false. As we know now, the reason
was that Colston Warne made no recommendations for any correx?tion.
It was purely a coverup operation, because his political sympathies
were already known.
It was at the end of that year, in 1933, that he transferred to Am-
hei-st College, boasting to me at the time that he thought this was a
pretty safe haven because the president of Amherst in 19;>2 was a
man who was primarily interested in classical things and was a bug,
as he said, on academic freedom. He found his berth. He is still
there.
My first experience with actual Communist violence had actvuilly
occurred in the course of the political campaign of 1930. We will
cut back just for this point, because I want to bring it up later in 1933.
In 1930, 1 had helped organize a meeting in support of the Socialist
candidate for governor, which was addressed by Mayor Stumpf of
Reading, Pa. The meeting was held in a theater on a Sunday after-
noon. You must remember that I was very much a neop'hj^te in
8 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
these things. I assumed that political meetings were political meet-
ings ; that you organized, that you had your hall, your speech, and that
it was yours. But a half hour before the meeting, a corps of Com-
munists pushed their way through the doors at the lobby with their
arms full of Communist literature under leadership of one Carl
Hacker, H-a-c-k-e-r, subsequently an important leader of the Hotel
and Restaurant Employees Union in Pittsburgh. These people
served us with a demand that they had the right to sell their literature
and dispense it in the lobby of our meeting on the grounds of free
speech, although all of their literature which they proposed for sale
contained attacks upon the organization, ourselves, that was spon-
soring the meeting. They were politely refused, and we explained
the situation to them. But the meeting was an open meeting.
Scarcely had the meeting started than people planted in the balcony
started rising and showering the audience below with mimeographed
leaflets attacking in false and slanderous fashion the speaker of the
day.
We then saw when that incident was over the tactic, which was
an exact duplicate of the Nazi tactic in dealing with other people's
meetings, as we will subsequently discover. Before the speaker
could get well started on his speech, individuals would start popping
up and standing on their chairs in the middle of the audience, "to ask
a question" at the top of their voice. To ask a question, of course, is
in quotes. The only difference here is that we found that when we put
an usher beside each person that they subsided immediately. They
were easily intimidated. No violence was necessary. But their own
expression of it was very significant in their approach to this meeting.
This was my first experience with the approach of Communists
into violence and breaking up other people's meetings. Two years
later I recognized the tactic, because I attended a meeting of the Ger-
man Democratic Society's in New York City at Town Hall just prior
to the last Nazi election of 1932. Here I saw the young Nazi Bund
sympathizers do the exact duplicate of this tactic, that is, the tactic
of rising, standing on the chair, and shouting at the top of their voice,
only of course they shouted in German because the meeting was pre-
dominantly German in its composition, although it was held in Town
Hall, New York. It was a sympathy meeting with the democratic
forces going down for the count in Germany.
In 1933, while at Harrisburg as a correspondent, I was called in
my capacity as editor of the Young People's Socialist League paper^
after 2 years in the Socialist Party I had joined the Young People's
Socialist League in 1932. I had been elected its industrial secretary.
That corresponds to trade-union secretary, and editor of its paper,
the Challenge of Youth, which did not appear until some time early
in 1933. But while in Harrisburg I received a telephone call from
the chairman of the Socialist Party in Cook County, 111., announcing
to me that the Young People's Socialist League organization had been
substantially infiltrated by Communists, and that I had better get in
and clean the organization out or they would simply throw the whole
young people's organization into the middle of the street. The lan-
guage was perliaps — he was a college professor, but he was fairly
forcible about it.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE EST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 9
I left Harrisbiirg and proceeded to Chicago, and on behalf of the
national executive committee of the Young People's Socialist League
started an investigation, and I found that there had indeed been an
infiltration. They had even gone so far as to picket for a Communist
cause a Socialist-Jewish newspaper in Chicago, the Jewish Daily For-
ward, although they were still ostensibly members of the Socialist
organization.
My investigation developed that the infiltration had gone so far
that it included the national secretary of the organization itself, an
individual who subsequently appears in the furniture workers' ref-
erence to which I am directing my current testimony. This indi-
vidual's name was George Smerkin. He was not a Communist, but
a very weak youngster. He had committed a breach of confidence;
this is an interesting example of the way this individual has been
attached to them. He is now the office manager of the United Fur-
niture Workers Union in New York. He was permitted to attend an
executive session of the Socialist Party Convention in Ohio, at which
certain confidential facts were related, relating to the circumstances
under which Tom Mooney, of California, had been expelled from
the Socialist Party in 1911 or 1912. In violation of the confidence
and in a surge of enthusiasm, he communicated these facts to Com-
munist friends, and even wrote them in letters. These people then
came to him with these letters and said to him, "You are not a Com-
munist, but we have these letters. We think you belong with us.
Join with us, because if you don't we will reveal these letters to your
board, and they of course will fire you and you will be no further
use to us and that will be the end of your career in this organi-
zation." So he became their stooge within the organization.
I discovered one morning he had rifled all his mail, abstracted it
from the office, and left the office before the rest of the staff came in in
the morning. Inasmuch as this had happened somewhat analogously
three times in the Young People's Socialist League from its found-
ing in approximately 1918 on, the pattern was complete.
I merely convened a meeting of the subcommittee of the office, and
when he came back he was already removed as secretary. The key
to the door had been changed, and he was up for trial.
But because of his key position, this necessitated an investigation
and a series of expulsions throughout the Young People's Socialist
League. I j ourneyed to various places in the Midwest.
In the city of Milwaukee, I identified the leader of the Communist
infiltrators as a young student in the Milwaukee Industrial Trade
School by the name of Harold Christoffel. In all cases except this
individual, I was permitted under the authority of the Young People's
Socialist League, of which I that year became national chairman, to
expel these people after presentation of evidence as to their identifi-
cation with this Communist infiltration effort. However, in Mil-
waukee the affairs of the young people's organization, instead of
being in their own hands, were in the hands of a welfare committee
made up mostly of Socialist Party people, no trade unionists among
them, as it happened, with whom I was familiar, but mostly business
people and lawyers. These people assured me that this individual
was just a misled young man. I presented to them evidence that he
was a hardened Communist operative, although only in the equivalent
of high school at the time.
10 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
I was finally denied authority or any jurisdiction over him. He
was permitted to remain in the organization from 1933 to 1938, at
which time, after he had had 5 years' use of Socialist Party member-
ship as a badge of respectability, as it was in Milwaukee because it
was in the city administration for many years, they finally expelled
him 5 years later for having been a secret Communist within the
Socialist Party for those 5 years. Christoffel was my only failure.
However, because of the interest, there was one other person over
whom I had no jurisdiction whom I did identify as a Communist,
sympathizer at this time. This was a man and his wife, known as
George S. Wheeler. George S. Wlieeler at that time I had met
slightly in 1932, in the brief time I was in Chicago. He was secretary-
treasurer of the Jackson Park branch of the Socialist Party. How-
ever, when I returned in 1933 to engage in the cleanout of the Comnni-
nist infiltration of the young people's organization, he was a sympa-
thizer of these young people. I had no jurisdiction over him because
the party organization was very loose in any kind of discipline, and
nothino-'was done about Wlieeler because his views were confined to
an expression of his views.
Inasmuch as in subsequent years up to the time I left the Socialist
Party in 1941, in March 194i, I was customarily called upon when
it was a question of dealing with Communist infiltration, I kept track
of people of this sort. I checked in subsequent years, in 1938, when
I was through Washington in the fall of 1938, a^ain in 1940, again
in 1941, 1942, and 1943, each time inquiring about George S. Wlieeler's
sentiments, because I knew of his location in Washington. On each
occasion I was assured that everybody who knew him well understood
that he was a bitter and vindictive Stalinist, as we used the term,
as the term is used in the radical movement to indicate not just a
Communist but specifically a strong, clear-cut, oriented, official
Communist.
Senator Butler. What we call hard-core Communists ?
Mr. McDowell. Now, yes. There were other versions of the Com-
munists. I subsequently had experience with that, because in 1937 I
was in charge of the expulsion throughout the United States from the
Socialist Party of the Trotskyist Communists who had infiltrated the
whole Socialist organization and had to be expelled in that year, and
I was in charge of that particular rather nasty operation.
It is not exactly the same kind of Communist. There are variations
among individuals, but the operation is the same. It is a Bolshevik
operation. It is a conspiratorial secret operation.
At this time I picked up the trail of one George Smerkin, whom I
removed from office and subsequently expelled from the Young Peo-
ple's Socialist League in that year.
My next contact with George Smerkin was 2 years later, when I
was State secretary of the Socialist Party of Illinois, and my organizer
came in to report that he had been in Kockf ord, 111., in the labor temple,
and he had seen George Smerkin, but as soon as Smerkin saw him
coming he immediately hailed him and took him aside and said,
"Please be careful and don't let me down here. I am not known as
George Smerkin here. I am known as George Stewart." This was the
first time I picked up the trail. He was there at that time working in
the Rockford union organizing campaign of the Rockford furniture
workers.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 11
In 1934, 1 might point out, we had further experience with the pat-
tern of Communist civil violence, the outstanding example of which
was the forcible raid on the Madison Square Garden meeting of the
Socialist Party in 1934, protesting over the Dollfuss dictatorship in
Austria, which was invaded by Communists carrying lead pipe wrap-
ped up in newspaper and which was forcibly broken up by the use of
gangster tactics from all over the hall, concerted. This was probably
one of the earliest scandals in the labor movement, and a source of
considerable disillusionment.
In 1933 and 1934, 1 became active in the Chicago Workers Commit-
tee on Unemployment. The Chicago Workers Committee on Unem-
ployment was inspired largely by the settlement house and social
workers group in Chicago as a balance to the agitational power being
organized by the Communist Party in the so-called unemployed coun-
cils. The Chicago Workers Committee for the most part met in settle-
ment houses and committees.
Mr. Duffy. Has that any relation to the Workers Alliance?
Mr. McDowell. This was the predecessor of the Workers Alliance.
This was organized in the community by people concerned to prevent
the complete mobilization of the unemployed and relief-client group
by the Communists through the unemployment councils. There were
bitter exchanges back and forth from the very beginning. Because of
the lack of organizational experience with this sort of thing and the
difficulty of detecting Communists, the collaboration of the Socialists,
largely through the League for Industrial Democracy chapter in Chi-
cago, was solicited, and we did furnish a great deal of the practical
organization effort, and I became active in that work, speaking and
organizing these groups.
In approximately 1934, this movement, the Chicago Workers Com-
mittee on Unemployment, spread out through the State of Illinois,
largely in the mining sections, lead by Socialists, who formed the Illi-
nois Workers Alliance. This is IWA. This group was completely
Socialist led, and clearcutly protected from Communist domination
anywhere throughout the State. However, rapidly, by the end of the
first year, groups elsewhere, because of the success of the Illinois or-
ganization which ac(i[uired probably the largest single membership,
began to spring up elsewliere, some of them using similar names. But
most of them, again in the nature of this thing, being organized by
Socialists, because the Communists had the unemployed councils and
the Socialists entered into competitive work with them.
I worked with this group, was an officer of the Chicago organization
throughout, from approximately — my first entry into Chicago in 1932,
for any consistent period of time, from that time forward.
But in the election of 1936 we began to find out a considerable in-
filtration of the Socialist elements in the Workers Alliance. This was
not a serious matter. It could be dealt with and controlled. I might
say that our disaster came when, in 1935, some of the Socialists in the
Workers Alliance received the patronage of prominent people, includ-
ing Mrs. Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins, and we did not see very much
of these people who had originally been Socialist Party members.
They became more and more New Dealish and less and less officially
Socialist Party members.
Finally, in t-he spring of 1936, while the Socialist Party was having
a lot of difficulties within its own ranks over the question as to whether
12 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
they should continue to be an independent organization or whether
they should just all be New Dealers like the others, a program was
developed by two people in the Workers Alliance, its secretary and its
chairman, one David Lasser, who had become the national chairman oi
the National Workers Alliance which had been formed, and the other,
Paul A. Rasmussen, R-a-s-m-u-s-s-e-n. Rasmussen was still amenable
to Social counsel, but Lasser had become a constant visitant at the
White House, and it was no use talking to him any more. He had got
the blessing from on high. He was sure that the only thing to do
was to amalgamate all of this organization built over the previous 3
years under independent or Socialist leadership among the unem-
ployed and relief workers, to get a United movement, because the
Communist movement's policy had changecl the popular front tactic in
1935. They bid for it this first year, not Rfismussen but Lasser. They
informed the national executive committee of the Socialist Party, of
which I was an alternate member at that time, of their intention.
They were advised against it. They were advised that it would be
fatal.
But the Socialist organization did not have any disciplinary control
actually over its members, except the appeal of loyalty, and the merger
did go through. It was discovered afterward, the Socialists informed
us, that the Communist unem]:)loyed councils were purely a paper
organization. Their membership had been completely dissipated and
all they brought in were their officers and the paper and a few hard-
core Communists assigned to unemployment work. Their mass fol-
lowing, which through 1931, 1932, and 1933, had actually enabled
them to put on mass demonstrations, and so forth, had completely
disappeared in the course of these early days. They had no following.
The Communist movement actually was at one of its weakest points
along about 1937. I am not speaking about votes, or anything of the
sort. I am speaking about the movement, its membership, its appa-
ratus.
In 1936, the Workers Alliance — over our opposition, the Socialist
Party called a conference of its people to determine what should be
the ])olicy. Many of the Workers Alliance chapters which were
under Socialist leadership, such as Milwaukee, began to make arrange-
ments to pull out of the Workers Alliance because they refused to
accept the Communist acceptance, the Communist infiltration, not
being based on membership, but being based on an amalgamation
which enabled them to take over office, but ostensibly not a majority.
We found later they had a few sleepers on the board. Ostensibly
it was a union between a Communist organization giving them minor-
ity representation on the board, but we found there were some sleepers
on the board who had been planted there in the early stages to be anti-
Communists for a while and then to switch over at the last moment.
But the stumbling block was a young man by the name of Paul A.
Rasmussen, who was the secretary of the united organization.
Senator Butler. Do you know what became of him in later years?
Mr. McDowell. He is now working, I think, for the Chemical
Workers of the A. F. of L.
Senator Butler. Was he ever in Government office?
Mr. McDowell, I don't think so.
(Discussion off the record.)
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 13
Mr. McDowell. This Paul Rasmussen was the obstacle to complete
Communist takeover. Therefore, the way the Communists arranged
it was that they shipped Lasser, the chairman, to Spain on a trip to
the Spanish civil war front, and while he was away they brought up
charges against Rasmussen and pushed him out as secretary and put
in the Communist, Herbert Benjamin, as secretary. And of course
when he came back from his little jaunt through Spain and in to
Moscow, it was an accomplished fact and he, of course, accepted it
as an accomplished fact.
Senator Butler. Who is Herbert Benjamin?
Mr. ]\IcDowELL. Herbert Benjamin is the professional Communist
in the unemployed field in the years between 1931 and 1936 when he
moved into this united organization, when they persuaded them to
amalgamate.
Senator Butler. Where was he, in New York ?
Mr. McDowell. He was here in Washington. Benjamin then be-
came the secretary and ran the organization right down the middle
of the street from then on.
In 1938 we had had our stomachs full of it. I consulted with the
leading person we had in Illinois, who had stayed on in tolerance to
try to make the thing work, thinking maybe a united front might
still work. He was now completely convinced that he had had his
experience, too.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McDowell. One David Lasser, whom I knew from the years
1933 to the present, was, in my firm opinion, never a member of the
Communist Party. He was a very muddleheaded collaborator with
the Communist Party throughout the years 1936, 1937, 1938, and
finally got his fill and broke away, but only as late as the early part
of 1940.
The most depressing thing about his record was that he had stayed
on even after the Soviet-Nazi Pact for a few months, primarily at-
tracted by office.
I would say that in the fall of 1937 I had completed an assignment
which involved expulsion of a Trotskyist-Communist infiltration of
the membership of the Socialist Party. Some very prominent peo-
ple— I might say James Burnham was one of the prominent people I
expelled.
Senator Butler. Who is he ?
Mr. McDo\\t:ll. He is fairly well known around Washington these
days.
Senator Butler. Is he in the present administration?
Mr. McDowell. No. He is a very conservative man now. I only
pass it incidentally because it is one of those interesting things in
history. He once formulated the classical Communist theory to me
in the front room of Norman Thomas' house in October 1937. He
explained to me that "You are a democrat in your procedure and
philosophy. Therefore, you cannot interfere with me, who does not
have a democratic philosophy and belief and procedure, in the things
that I am proposing to do to your organization."
I said, "If you will give me 30 minutes to write a resolution for
expulsion and trial, I will see what I can do under democratic proce-
dure," and I did. I produced the resolution in 30 minutes and I
43903 — 54 2
14 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
produced the expulsion, all witliin 30 days. That included a very
powerful faction in Minneapolis, the Dimne brothers.
To get back to Lasser and to explain the type of thing we are dealing
with here, Lasser came in to Chicago and said, "You haven't approved
my policy of joining, but you have agreed to let the Socialists stay
within the Workers Alliance after the unemployed councils came in.
Therefore, will you now go to Milwaukee with me and we will jointly
plead with the Socialist-led groups there to come back into the Workers
Alliance," from which they had resigned over Communist domination
over this Communist union. I had no choice under the policy at the
time but to go up and make whatever formal presentation to advise
them what the policy was ; that while we did not approve the merger,
we felt that people should stay within and fight for their principles,
and so forth.
On the way up on the train Lasser turned to me and said, "Do you
implicitly trust Franklin Roosevelt to fight at all times for democ-
racy?"
I said, "Not by a damned sight."
He said, "Well, then, that means tliat you and I therefore can never
agree politically, because I trust Roosevelt implicitly on all these
questions."
Therefore, I say on the basis of knowledge of the man over these
years, lie was never a Connnunist, l)ut that he was led into this thing
by the fact that he believed on the basis of what he was told that this
w\as the thing that his idol, Roosevelt, wanted to be done. I am not
so sure that he was right, because he wasn't getting it from the horse's
mouth. He was getting it from a collateral source in the family.
Nevertheless, that is what he thought, and that is the basis on which
he acted.
This is my estimate. I have been very careful and painstaking
about this matter of Lasser, because he was the person that we had
the most bitter clashes with. Personally, I have more reason to be
aggrieved at him than against any other person, because in the fall
of 19.38, Se])tember of 1938, they held a convention in Cleveland of
the Workers Alliance. I went down as an observer. I could not go
in any other capacity. I frequently, as labor secretary of the Socialist
Party, covered conventions, and as a newspaperman also for the press,
A. F. of L. and CIO conventions in subsequent years. At this affair
I couldn't find any of my — the Socialist remnants which had once
founded and led an organization of considerable numbers were no-
where to be found. On one side of the hall were all Communists,
and on the other side were all New Dealers from the WPA, and so
forth. It was already being used for political purposes.
We were having complaints by that time that in a certain campaign
in Kentucky for Ignited States Senate, there was a cut in relief that
fall. Nevertheless, the Workers Alliance, according to this political
decision, were marched out to cheer the candidate of the administra-
tion that had just cut relief. They did it, by gosh. It is amazing,
but that is the type of purpose the thing was being used for by that
time.
To finish up the Workers Alliance — having finished up the year
1937, now we will work a little bit faster — I might say that in the
summer of 1937 we had the first beginning of knowledge of the prob-
lem of Communist operations in the CIO, which was then just taking
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 15
shape. Part of this year of 1937 I was the labor secretary, but this
was only after October, and the rest of it I dealt with in the office as
an assistant to the man who was then labor secretary.
Mr. Arens. Labor secretary of what'^
Mr. McDowell. Of the Socialist Party.
We found out in that year that a deal had been made beteen John L.
Lewis and the Communists in relation to the new unions that were
being set up under the CIO. The deal included what apparently ap-
pealed to Lewis as not essential at that moment, although he did
permit the infiltration of the steelworkers' campaign in the summer
of 1936.
The political nature of the steelworkers staff was so evident that
while people who were members of the Socialist Party were on the
official staff, from the reorganization people like Leo Krzycki —
K-r-z-y-c-k-i — former national chairman of the Socialist Party, as
a matter of fact, in 1936, was assigned to this staff, by the next 9
months after July of 1936 it was impossible for him to have any-
thing to do or to get any assignment to work on the steelworkers
staff because the Communists had taken over so completely in the
Chicago area. They reached their high point, of course, at the time
of the Chicago May Day massacre of 1937, at which time I have
fhe statement from one of the organizers of the Upholsterers Inter-
national Union, Mike Martin, who at that time was still in the
Communist Party, who has since broken, that either 31 or 32 out
of 33 members on the staff of the steelworkers organizing campaign
in Chicago were attending the Communist Party caucus. People
who were not of that disposition were literally driven out of the
campaign.
This included people whose names are fairly well known now.
One of the people who was driven off the steelworkers staff by this
Communist domination that summer was a man by the name of
Melvin Pitzeley, now the labor editor of Business Week. He was
forced off, and Leo Krzycki, vice president of the Amalgamated,
assigned to it.
Actually, out on the prairie the afternoon of the May Day
massacre of 1937 — Krzycki told me this personally — he pleaded and
pleaded with Joseph Weber, who had become the staff member of
the steelworkers in charge, a long-time Communist in Chicago, for-
merly head of the unemployed council, and an old antagonist whom
he had fought bitterly across the years during the formation of
the Chicago Workers Committees on Unemployed — we knew him
like any antagonist with whom you fought for nearly three-quarters
of a decade. He was in charge that afternoon, and Krzycki at that
time was still a Socialist. He subsequently was led down the garden
path by his Polish connections after 1944, but at that time a very
sincere person. He pleaded with Weber not to carry out his plan
for a picket because the people in charge knew that the police captain
in charge of the detail out there had a reputation as a sadist and would
probably welcome a clash, and Krzycki warned him that he was
leading people into a hail of death that was almost inevitable,
knowing the police captain in charge and his peculiar disposition.
But it was deliberate to order those people across the prairie that
afternoon, knowing what the situation was. They were deliberately
16 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
ordered. Joseph Weber, this organizer, according to the account
given me by Leo Krzycki, who, of course, told me this story per-
fectly freely, because in my capacity with the Socialist Party it was
perfectly natural that he should discuss trade-union affairs with me.
The peo])le remaining were told to start leading the picket line across
the prairie into the police line, into the armed police line, and Weber
said he would be upstairs and the organizers were to keep in touch
with him. He went upstairs in safety in headquarters a mile away,
and from there directed the march of the picket line into that ambush,
because that is what it amounted to, in 1937.
This is an example of what was going on in steel. I speak as if I
were still in the Socialist Party, because I was then. We were very
disheartened and discouraged, because we found it impossible any
longer to work. Our efforts and our contracts, particularly among
Yugoslavs and other groups in the steel industry, had languished and
good, sympathetic people toward any union movement had been used.
We had furnished them, and then that was the last we heard from the
people in the steel workers, because even people whom we recom-
mended for jobs, for example an individual who I had been very
friendly with in the Chicago Federation of Labor, Meyer Adelman,
of the pastry cooks union, was forced out of his business agentship in
the summer of 1936 by racketeers at the gunpoint, literally. He either
resigned his post and got out of the local that he built, or else it was
curtains.
A big fat man, he had no desire to be a hero, because he couldn't
get support of any significant sort in the local. We recommended a
job with the steel workers for this Meyer Adelman, not knowing too
much of his character except that he had shown courage in combating
racketeers in his own local union. We found he had no political cour-
age, because right after he had taken his post he came to us and asked
for aid in Waukegan, 111., where there was a strong Yugoslav social
democratic group. These people pitched in on our recommendation
and helped him, and as soon as he got to be secretary of the town, he
immediately joined up with the Communist caucus, because that was
the only way to preferment at that time in the fall of 1936 and the
beginning of 1937.
Our concern was with the outfits which were being handed over
at top and bottom to the Communists. These we discovered by the end
of 1947 were as follows : First, the white-collar workers, that is to say,
the organization to which they were handed over was an organization
which became known as the United Office and Professional Workers
Union. We had many Socialists active in this group, because there
were a lot of white-collar workers among them, including the largest
A. F. of L. local in New York, headed by Sam Baron, who has lost
more jobs in the trade union movement for being anti-Communist than
any other man I know of. He broke some of the inside story on the
Spanish civil war by testifying before the House Un-American Activi-
ties Committee, I think in 1938. Sam Baron and others.
We found when these gatherings convoked by the CIO for the pur-
pose of forming a union were met, the representatives of the CIO in all
cases were two people, one of whom was a personal friend of mine
and the other was an acquaintance, though no friend. One was a sort
of Socialist, John Brophy, and the other was a person whom I had
known as a Communist since 1929, Len De Caux. The reason I knew
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 17
liim as a Communist was that he tried to take me to Communist meet-
ings. His wife and he both in their home tokl me that they were Com-
munists in every sense of the word. He at that time had the strategic
post as the actual editor of the Locomotive Engineers Journal in the
city of Cleveland, when I first knew him in 1929.
This post, incidentally, in a very conservative, ultra-conservative
labor organization, was held from 1921 or 1922 on to the end of De
Caux's position in 1932 or 1933, by a Communist at all times. The
predecessor was Coyle. This is an example of Communist operation
in the labor union of a completely unscrupulous sort.
This is one of the standard stories. Mr. Coyle, as editor and there-
fore the adviser to the grand engineer of the locomotive engineers in
.1926, when the United Mine Workers was battling for its life against
the unorganized competition of the cheap coal from West Virginia
in the Pennsylvania fields and the central competitive fields in the
ApjDalachians, the locomotive engineers as a union purchased coal
mines in the center of the nonunion field in West Virginia. The mine
workers immediately proposed that as one union to another they should
give them a foothold by recognizing them as a union. But the secre-
tary to the grand engineer was a Communist, and the policies' of the
Communist Party at that time, under the influence of William Z.
Foster, was to prevent the A. F. of L.'s getting any sort of recovery,
and the Mine Workers were part of the A. F. of L. So the Commu-
nists there persuaded the grand engineer of the Brotherhood of Loco-
motive Engineers to operate Union-owned mines nonunion. This is
an example of wheels within wdieels when you get into Communist
intrigue.
Len De Caux, in the summer of 1937, as a Socialist Party official
discovered on each occasion as conventions were convoked of the
United Office and Professional Workers Union, where most of the
word was passed by Len De Caux, assisted by John Brophy, being
director of organization, and as the United Cannery, Agriculture,
Packing and Allied Workers, into which the agricultural workers
were to be regimented, was formed, also under the supervision of
John Brophy, it was an understood thing that Communists should
head these unions fi-om the beginning. That was the deal made by
John L. Lewis with the Communists.
Mr. Arens. I wonder if you could clarify the record on that. What
unions specifically were involved?
Mr. McDowell. The ones involved in the deal ?
Mr. Arens. Is that the office workers, the predecessor union to
Flaxer's present union ?
Mr. McDowell. No. That is a separate outfit entirely. These
were unions which the Communists were to head from the beginning.
In the case of the office workers, I might say naturally the mine work-
ers looked upon this as a contemptible part of the deal, because why
give away the office workers ? It never occurred to them until many
years later that an office workers union with a closed-shop contract
can supply all the secretaries to all the trade-union officers in any
organization, because they have to recognize their own union. There
was nothing more strategic than this group of ordinarily ineffective
white-collar workers. So the Communists, like the Connecticut
Yankee in King Arthur's Court, "Just call me boss." That was suffi-
18 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
cient title for them. They wanted the office workers. They wanted the
one group of people, and they got them, where there is the greatest
amount of exploitation and unease in America, namely, the migratory
farmworker. That is where America falls shortest in its economic
rewards, the migratory farmer, and here is a great source, as they
thought, of agitation.
The reason we knew was that we had
Mr. Arens. Excuse me a second, Mr. McDowell. You were enumer
ating the unions.
Mr. McDowell. They were, respectively, the ones which the Com-
munists were to head.
Mr. Arens. Yes, let's get those.
Mr. McDowell. The United Office and Professional Workers, cov-
ering the office employees ; the United Cannery, Agriculture, Packing
and Allied Workers, which were to cover the agricultural workers,
cannery, and miscellaneous. These were handed over directly, with
the definite provision that designated Communists were to become
presidents in the key offices.
Donald Henderson, Columbia University farmer, was to be the head
of the agricultural workers. Lewis Merrill, L-e-w-i-s M-e-r-r-i-1-1,
was made head of the office workers.
The deal also affected certain other organizations which were to be
manipulated by the Communists, although they preferred non-Com-
munists as the heads.
iSIr. Arens. This deal, so the record is perfectly clear, was between
vrhom ?
Mr. McDowell. It was between Lewis and the Communists, a per-
fectly cold-blooded proposition. Le^vis thought he wasn't giving
anything away.
Senator Butler. Do you later get into the purpose of the deal ?
Mr. McDowell. The purpose of the deal was to get the CIO organ-
ized quick and to get Lewis a tremendous membership. The Com-
munists were known to be tremendously active people, devoted workers,
and they had footholds in this field; particularly they had been con-
centrating on the white-collar workers since 1934. Mary Van Kleek,
of the Russell Sage Foundation, was their ace-in-the-hole, and the
reason I know iSIary Van Kleek is a Communist is that in the ordinary
course of conversation — the secretary of the Socialist Party in Illinois,
Ina White, is a New England spinster, and she was a member of this
very exclusive organization known as the Colonial Dames, which is so
much more exclusive than the DAR because to be a member of the
Colonial Dames you must have your lineal ancestors mentioned in
Colonial official documents. That makes it even more exclusive.
Mary Van Kleek is also a member of the Colonial Dames.
There was a social workers conference which was the big concentra-
tion, l)ecause the Communists hoped to move in from the unemployed
at one end and the relief workei-s, social workers' set-up on the other,
and you couldn't beat that combination, because the social workers
would administer the relief, they would give it only to the Communists,
and one hand Avould wash the other. It worked ver}' admirably, as a
matter of fact, up until a very few years ago.
Mary Van Kleek sat down with Miss Ina White, and they talked it
ovei', and Mary Van Kleek, one old New Englancler to another, said.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 19
"I am a member of the Communist Party. What about you?" She
says, "Everybody knows I am a member. I am an officer of the
Socialist Party."
Ina White came back to Chicago and quite obviously reported it to
nie. So the argument went on for years subsequently as to whether
Mary Van Kleek, who led the Communist effort in this field from a
vantage point in the Russell Sage Foundation, was a Communist. She
admitted it where there was no pressure at all in a private conversation
in 1934.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McDowell. In June of 1940 I visited the convention of the
United Steel Workers meeting in the INIorrison Hotel. There in the
lobby I met John Brophy, an old acquaintance and friend since 1929.
Brophy at this time was still working under Lewis, but very indignant
over Lewis' two policies, one of isolation from the European conflict,
his isolationist policy, and his collaboration with the Communists in
connection with his isolation policy.
Brophy therefore told me how this was handled in a specific case.
He said to me, "Do you know how that so-and-so," referring to Presi-
dent Lewis, then of the CIO, "made me handle the west coast situa-
tion ? He called me in privately and told me" — this was in 1937 also —
"I want you to go to the west coast and to hand over the management
of the CIO on the west coast to Harry Bridges, and I want you to make
clear," Brophy said Lewis told him, "at the time that you do it that
you are doing it entirely on your own responsibility and that I have
nothing whatsoever to do with it."
This is the end of the account of John Brophy as to how the thing
was handled.
At no time did Lewis deal with the boys directly. It was always
through subalterns who were instructed exactly what to do and how
to misrepresent it. That was the way the thing was handled.
Tlie reason that we came into contact with this first was that, as
part of the agricultural workers that was invited in the Southern
Tenant Farmers Union, which now is part of the A. F. of L., loiown
as the Agricultural Workers L^nion. The Southern Tenant Farmers
Union had been organized in 1933-34 when the Wallace policy on cash
subsidies for restrictions had put an immense cash bonus on evictions
by southern plantation owners to avoid any claim of the sharecroppers
to any i)ortion of the casli. This was protested at the time, by the way,
to Wallace, and he refused either to answer letters or even to see
close personal friends who called his attention to it. He was abso-
lutely incommunicado.
The people making the protests were able to see the President of the
United States, but the Secretary of Agriculture was inaccessible as
this policy worked out. Thousands of sharecroppers were evicted en
masse and piled with their goods along the roads of the Southern
States, Arkansas, Tennessee, and the other sharecropping States.
As a result of a policy that was enriching the plantation owners,
these people were having the slightest earth that was around their
economic roots just simply ruthlessly shovelled away. The Southern
Tenant Farmers Union emerged as a tenant and sharecrop})er organi-
zation then during that period, largely subsidized and aided, because
it never paid its own dues — these people were poverty-stricken beyond
20 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
belief — it was largely sup])orted by Norman Thomas and a group of
Socialist and liberal friends. That is how it was financed.
From the first this group was in conflict with various Communist
operations in the agricultural field, so the feeling was very sharp
and intense between them. Wlien H. L. Mitchell, still president of
the Agricultural Workers Union of A. F. of L., got to the convention,
he found that Brophy had changed the stakes. It was originally to
be a federation which w^ould allow their organization to carry on its
particular kind of work. When he got there he found that Brophy
was telling him. no nonsense about this, you just come in and you are
part of Donald Henderson's organization. He consulted with us
about it, and we tried to intervene with John Brophy, as an old friend,
as a Socialist sympathizer of years past, and got at that time a curt
reply that if he wanted to continue in existence as an organization, he
had better get in and accept the terms on which he would get in.
As a result, an uneasy relationship persisted until 19?>8, at which
time this H. L. Mitchell led the first breakaway from the CIO organi-
zations on the issue of the Communist domination. This was the
breakaway of the Southern Tenant Farmers Union locals in Arkansas,
Tennessee, and IMississippi, from Donald Henderson's outfit, which
subsequently changed its name and became the Food and Agricultural
Workers Organization, food and tobacco, and I think survives as one
of the Communist organizations. That, however, is an example.
It came to our attention that another type of deal was on. This
did not involve anything the Communists, the presidency, or the chief
position in the union, as in the case of the office workers and the agri-
cultural workers. It involved in the case of the United Federal
Workers appointing a very respected and honorable man, Jacob Baker,
as president, but appointing a Communist as secretary-treasurer, a
girl by the name Eleanor Nelson.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McDowell. I believe we were summarizing the situation as it
existed in the fall of 1937 in relationship to two unions already
enumerated which were understood to be handed over to Communist
complete operation. There were then, in addition to the United
Federal Workers, which was to organize obviously Federal employees,
which was headed by a very respected and honest citizen, who 2 years
later said that he had to resign because he couldn't even read his own
mail.
The second that occurs to me immediately is the State, County, and
Municipal Workers Union, and the third was a new furniture workers
union of the CIO which was to be formed by taking advantage of
difficulties of the Upholsterers International Union on jurisdictional
questions within the A. F. of L. and which, as the others, was to be
headed by a non-Communist. In this case the understanding was
that the president would be Sal B. Hoffman, newly elected president
of the Upholsterers International Union. This was the second place
at which this agreement went astray. The first occasion of course
actually was that wliich led to the departure the following year of the
Southern Tenant Farmers Union from the Agricultural Workers
setup. That was the first split-off which revealed the Communist
control and the revolt against it.
Now came the case of the Furniture Workers Union. This union,
because of the failure of that original deal, has at all times been one
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 21
of the places where the policy of the Communists within the CIO end
of it has leaked most perceptibly because they have not been able since
the upset of their plans in 1937 to give an account completely of their
control of this outfit.
There always has been a yeasty situation within the organization as
a result of the open warfare carried on by the Upholsterers Interna-
tional Union when they evaded the trap and weren't dragged into it.
]\Iy research when I assumed the post of director of organization of
the Upholsterers International Union, that being my first capacity, in
June of 1945, was to make an investigation into the specific history of
this, as I had some personal contact with it. This personal contact
came at the A. F. of L. convention in 1937 in Denver. I covered this
convention as a newspaperman, and at one session a man by the name
of Boris Muster, a delegate from the Upholsterers International
Union arose to make a speech. The first part of his speech was a bitter
complaint of the grievances of the upholsterers in terms of their juris-
dictional problems relating to woodworkers and was in a sense hostile
to the convention.
The individual concerned, finding the convention's expression very
hostile, began to shift and wound up his speech with a pledge of un-
dying loyalty to the A. F. of L. under any and all circumstances.
At this point Louis Budenz, who at that time was a very active Com-
munist and was there at the press desk representing the Daily Worker,
called me and Lou Stark, of the New York Times, and several other
newspapermen together to reassure us and tell us that we should dis-
regard Muster's speech, that it had no foundation in fact, because
actually Sal B. Hoffman in Philadelphia was going to lead the whole
outfit into the CIO after this convention was over.
Budenz was giving the dope as he had it straight from the party's
mouth at that time. He called us together and told us this was part
of the scheme. This is where the edge of the thing shows to the open
world what was going on.
Actually a deal had been worked out, the terms of it had been
worked out between Sidney Hillman and the Conmiunist group within
the Upholsterers International Union in Xew York in that year 1937,
under which the Upholsterers International Union was to secede and
around it would be grouped a lot of other independent local unions,
including Federal unions that could be pried loose from the American
Federation of Labor and this would be the foundation for a new fur-
niture workers union, a new setup within the CIO.
This also was handled by John Brophy.
In the course of my research, my appetite was, of course, Avhetted by
that contact I had with it, because within a few days after the adjourn-
ment of that convention m Denver the newspapers carried the story
that there had been an upset and instead of the upholsterers going out
of the A. F. of L. and becoming part of a new CIO union, they had
repudiated the whole set up, and a mere segment had seceded and
formed a CIO union which received a charter late that year, but only
a rump section.
Plaving this first handling when I came into the Upholsterers Inter-
national Union in 191:5, I made an intensive research into it because
negotiations at that time for a no-raiding or peace pact between the
Upholsterers International Union and the Furniture Workers Union
! P n R T . I C !
22 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Avere proceeding, the purpose being not to amalgamate the organiza-
tions but to avoid, if possible, outright competition in various sectors.
The political basis was that JSIuster, the man who at Denver had
under the pressure of the audience switched from a hostile, anti-
A. F. of L. position in the same speech to a very pro-A. F. of L. posi-
tion, was now the head of the furniture Avorkers. He was what Sal
Hoffman was intended to be, the stooge head of a Communist-domi-
nated union.
So I went back over the circumstances, and this is essentially in
brief outline the story of Communist operations in the furniture
industry, an industry which does not attract attention because it is
scattered throughout all the United States. It has no significance
in the normal course as a war industry, although in periods of con-
version the bigger plants in the industry do fidfill war contracts. But
in which there always has been a bitter struggle over this Communist
issue within the furniture industry and which continues to this day.
Tliis was evident, so far as I believe, the first record of it was fonnd
in my research in the August 1922 issue.
This union did not publish a journal until May of 1922. after hav-
ing been in existence theretofore for ^0 years, but in the August 1922
issue there is a lead editorial by the union president who declares,
"The issue is, shall they, the Communists, scuttle the ship of the Amer-
ican labor movement, or will labor make them walk the plank?"
This contest with Communists in the union, of which there appear
to be always a scattering, ranged through the twenties.
Mr. Arens. Identify the union again, please.
Mr. McDowell. This is the Upholsterers International Union.
In 1929. in a series of articles in various Communist and near-
Commnnist publications, William Z. Foster called for a new policy
of dual unionism, abandoning the policy pursued from 1922, the first
open activity of the Communist Party of America, to 1929, for (he
most part, of boring from within the existing unions. This was a
policy of dual imionism. The Trade Union Educational League, a
Communist-front organization of Foster's, was now converted into
the Trade Union Unity League, which became the trade-union center
in accordance Avith instructions received that year from Moscow.
The furniture field was considered snbsidiarv to the needle-trade
field, in which the Communists because of the breakup of the work-
ing gronp believed they Avoidd have the maxinuun chance to fiet their
base, and from this base to make a bridgehead into the rest of the
labor moA'ement.
The organization that came into existence in various forms was
known as the Furniture Workers Industrial Union, the National
Furniture Workers Industrial Union, and vaiHous variants of this
name. One of the new people to appear in the furniture trade at this
time was a garment sewer by the name of Mon-is Pizer, a garment-
industry sewer, who because of a mistaken belief that there was a
similar tie between something in the upholstery trade, which is palm
and needle, and something in the garment trades, was transferred
bv the Communist Party because of their weakness of leadership into
the furniture industry, and he began to appear somewhere after 19o0.
He is definitely what is known as a colonizer.
When an organization is too weak to a great extent, thev transfer
from one trade to another. He came into the Upholsterers I'''nion, not
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 23
into the Upholsterers Union but into the new Fnrnituie Workers In-
dustrial Union, which was very nuich weaker than the needle-trades
industrial union, which was their dual union in the needle trades.
However, their tactics were the same attempts at raid, backdoor agree-
ments, anything under heaven in order to get themselves a foothold.
They were not very successful, but in the city of New York they did
succeed in organizing by 1934 and 1935 a woodworkers union, a fur-
niture woodworkers union, mostly in the shops making frames origin-
ally for upholstered furniture. Tliis was under the Furniture AVorkers
Industrial Union organization. Some time in 1935 when the Com-
munist Party line changed and abandoned dualism and the instruc-
tions were to come back into the A. F. of L.. all of the names of the
people who had been active in trying to break up the upholsterers in
order to form the Furniture Workers Industrial Union came back,
and at that time as j^art of A. F. of L. unions, including fur workers,
they were accepted on the ground of a declaration of past offenses and
their intention in the future to be devotedly loyal to the A. F. of L.
Of course their devoted loyalty lasted 2 years.
This group of people represented very little addition. The grou])s
they brought in were primarily as folloAvs : Their members, who had
gone out and formed a competitive union, came back into the Up-
holsterers Local 76 of New York, which they had completely lost in-
fluence in during the period of their dual-union tactics. They brought
in this new organization under a man by the name of Max Perlow.
This 76-B, it was called, linked with the old upholsterers local. They
also brought in and with it George Smerkin, alias Stewart, of Rock-
ford, 111., the Rockford Furniture Workers local. They brought in
also a group in Los Angeles of some importance. These were the 3
centers of Communist strength — New York, Illinois outside of
Chicago, that is. and Los Angeles.
By 1937 there had been an increase in membership in the union, and
in the spring of 1937 an argument that had been going on for some
years was settled, the argument being the question of inclustrial organ-
ization of the whole upholstered furniture industry. The union
elected a new president in the spring of 1937. Sal B. Hoffman of Phila-
delphia, with a long history of local union ex})erience and an organ-
izer for the international union many times in the past.
The immediate problem of a new president was a long-standing con-
flictwith the Carpenters Union of the A. F. of L. back to 19li over
the jurisdiction over the woodworkers within furniture plants, where
the upholsterers were already organized in most cases. This was an
old story and also there was a problem relating to building trades-
men, linoleinn layers, carpet layers, and so forth.
These problems resulted in some tension with the American Federa-
tion of Labor over its failure to act on jurisdictional problems.
The Communist group by this time had become very active and had
taken office. In 2 years' time they had moved into a considerable num-
ber of offices in the shifting situation. They were unified as far as the
support of Hoffman is concerned. There was no opposition to that.
He w^as elected unanimously by the convention. Then on the board
appeared certain names, including Morris Pizer. who is identifiecl
as having come over from the needle trades first to found the TUUL in
the furniture industry and then transferred into the upholsterers when
the party line changed in 1935.
24 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Now in 1937 this group of people came to the general executive board
of the upholsterers and suggested that they join the CIO and solve
this whole problem of jurisdiction by going out and organizing whom-
ever they pleased by joining the CIC). At this time not only were there
people who were loyal as such to the A. F. of L. in the union but there
were people who were dependent for their jobs because of their build-
ing-trades cards being honored in the building trades, such as the
linoleum layers. Therefore the new international president said he
was perfectly willing to consider a solution of the problem by a change
of affiliation, but he was not going to go along with it unless the tran-
sition was approved by the overwhelming proportion of the members.
He therefore suggested that a new union affiliation could only be taken
by a referendum in which 70 percent of the vote was in favor because
there should be no 51 -percent votes because in the nature of union ref-
erendum it would be unrepresentative and the organization would
merely split itself into parts and not move anyplace.
This was unanimously agreed to by the general executive board, by
the persons including those subsequently identified as the Communist
caucus. That included, first, Max Perlow, from 76-B ; second, Morris
Pizer; third. Jack Hochstadt.
All of these people were party to the agreement for a 70-percent ref-
erendum in case of any change in affiliation. Agreement was worked
out with John Brophy, representing the CIO, and Hofiman, represent-
ing the upholsterers, to summon a conference to confer as to what
should be done. Inasmuch as the upholsterers were bound to move only
in case of this special referendum, a specified number of votes, it was
understood clearly with Brophy that this conference was to be a con-
ference to consider furniture union and industry problems but no
union was to be formed. However, in specific abrogation of the agree-
ment for this conference which was to be held in Washington, D. C,
the weekend following Thanksgiving in 1937, Brophy sent out a letter
the last sentence of which stated to consider the formation of a new
union. This was a specific violation of the agreement which he made
with Sal Hoffman, but it was in specific compliance with the deal which
had been made througli Hillman for the CIO and Lewis with the Com-
munist group of the furniture workers in New York.
The experience with Brophy in 1937 as related in the record is ex-
actly the same as the experience of H. L. Mitchell, of the Agricultural
Workers Union in trying to get assurance out of Brophy in his case
in 1937.
It was more abrupt in the case of Mitchell because he was finally
told he had no choice in the matter. In the case of Hoffman and the
upholsterers, an old-established union, the arrangement was that
Brophy for 30 daj's was unavailable. He could not be reached to be
questioned about this violation of the agreement in the call of this
Thanksgiving Day conference. However, toward the end of Novem-
ber a delegation appeared in the office of the Upholsterers International
Union, then in New York, headed by Pizer and Muster, who appears
here for the first time in this situation. Pizer, Perlow, Hochstadt,
Magliacano, all known, with the exception of Muster, as the members
of the Communist unit.
This is the story as related to me in detail by President Hoffman in
getting this research background of the history of the furniture work-
ers— United Furniture Workers Union, CIO.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 25
During this period lie was completely unable to get Brophy by
telephone or to get any answer to his communication. However, when,
a few days before the Thanksgiving conference date in Washington,
this delegation showed up in his office, they asked him what he was
going to say in his speech to the conference. Hoffman then told them
that he didn't know that he was necessarily going to the conference
because the conference call Avas in violation of the agreement that he
had with John Brophy, of the CIO.
There was a tremendous amount of excitement, and they told him
that he had to go, and they even offered to tell him what he was to say.
They wanted to write his speech. They said that he must say that
they would found a new union. This Avas in violation of their own
unanimous agreement on the general executive board. They said that
is unimportant, completely unimportant.
The delegation left the office, and within 30 minutes of the time they
left the office John Brophy, who could not be reached for the previous
30 days voluntarily, called Hoffman and asked him how he was doing.
There was just time enough for the Communist delegation to get out
of the office and contact Brophy and Brophy in turn to call Hoffman to
straighten out the whole thing.
Just prior to this period a great deal of pressure had been applied
to Hoffman as president of the union, including two sessions to which
he had been escorted by this Communist clique in the New York up-
holsterers local in the office of Sidney Hillman. Sidney Hillman had
told him that he had to go along with the course of history and asked
him what was his hesitation. He pointed out that he had two or three
thousand linoleum layers with building-trades cards whose jobs would
be innnediately imperiled if they severed A. F. of L. affiliations.
At this time he makes some point of the statement that Hillman made
to him that he had no choice and that the people were no consideration
of importance and their jobs were no consideration of any importance.
This was the last of two conferences with Hillman, at which time
Hillman put the pressure on him to come along with the CIO program
regardless and in disregard, as a matter of fact, of the agreement of his
executive board to go only on a TO-percent referendum.
By this time it became evident to him that there was not to be a
legitimate organization but that this was an attempt to tvirn him into
a stooge, a front president for an organization that they were going
to set up and manipulate. He, therefore, conferred with the officers
of the A. F. of L. and found that there was a different factor involved
here that had special significance. Reluctantly in the earlier part of
1937 a proposal for labor unity had arisen, largely through the initia-
tive of the teamsters union, and while Lewis was bitterly opposed
to any such proposal he could not afford openly to oppose it. So
Lewis had told them that, in addition to the other factors at this
Thanksgiving 1937 conference, there must be a furniture union formed
detaching the upholsterers from the A. F. of L., because there was a
meeting of this unity meeting the Monday following Thanksgiving
and if they pulled this detachment or secession of the upholsterers
union from the A. F. of L., the A. F. of L., in all honor and self-
defense, would be compelled to pull out of the unity negotiations be-
cause of the breach of the faith which was involved. The onus for
breaking off the unity negotiations would lie upon the A. F. of L.
26 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
They would be in that position in the public eye. The}^ had to have,
because of political needs of the CIO president at that time, the
chairman, because the CIO, of course, was thought constituted until
1938 as an organization with a president, but he was chairman of
the CIO — Lewis had to have the new furniture union with the up-
holsterers seceded that weekend in order to serve his purpose.
The A. F. of L. officers asked Hoffman therefore to go to this con-
ference and to do anything that was necessary to prevent a new union
being formed on the spot and the upholsterers implicated in the pro-
ceedings which would put the A. F. of L. officials in an impossible
position on the following Monday.
So there are two sets of purposes met in this conference. The
Communist delegates — Pizer, Perlow. Hochstadt, Magliacano — pro-
ceeded to come as delegates from tlie upholsterers union and proceeded
to ]>our every kind of vilification and abuse that they could invent
upon the union and all its historv here in conference with other unions.
Mr. Duffy. And Sirota?
Mr. McDowell. Sirota? Sirota was the other one of the group.
There were five. The five I believe we should recapitulate with:
Pizer. Perlow, Magliacano. Hochstadt, and Sirota. This was the
group.
The essence of it was that the upholsterers group was able to
solidify themselves and agree that they would promise almost any-
thing as long as the conference itself did not form a union. So they
filibustered for the better part of 2 days and they never did get to
the place of forming the new union as a consequence. But they were
taken out and told that John L. Lewis Avanted to see them, and they
were ushered into it. They said Lewis would not see them unless they
said a new union was to be formed. He said nothing about this, but
when Lewis came into the thing to meet the delegation down here in
downtown Washington he started addressing them as the new CIO
Furniture Workers Union. Sal Hoffman, speaking for the upholster-
ers, said : "But, Mr. Lewis, there isn't any new union formed. We
have just agreed to set up a program and to carry on a referendum
of our locals and the other locals involved."
Lewis turned on his heel and walked out of the conference.
The following Monday the Daily Worker carried a story, regardless
of the facts, to the effect that a new union had been formed and the
upholsterers had joined a new unioiL There was a complete falsifica-
tion of the facts. They were called on it. On the following Monday
the Communist group came in plus Muster this time, into the union
office and they said there was no further nonsense, that they must go
CIO, and they regardless of anything else were all going to go CIO.
This amounted to a mass resignation and Hoffman simply rose and
said, all right, there is the door. Get cut. You have now resigned.
Because by this measure he lost all the Communist members on his
board, because under the democratic rules of the organization had
they stayed they could have tied up his machinery completely in
charges and countercharges in democratic proceedings for a long
period of time.
The constitution of the union at that time went to such democratic
extremes that an individual member accused and subject to expulsion
could demand a referendum of the entire international union in the
United States and Canada with unlimited right to press his case in
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 27
writing at the union's expense. This was an example. Any officer
challenged by charges was automatically suspended. Therefore, the
salvation as far as this Communist operation was concerned was this
maneuver which made these people show their hand and expose them-
selves as desiring to defy their own unanimous decision on the board.
They then went out the door along Avith Muster. Within a few weeks
a CIO charter was announced to a United Furniture Workers Union,
and this union was formed by the setting up of these former A. F. of L.
federal unions which were cletaching themselves from the A. F. of L.
by some local unions the CIO had picked up in the furniture and
woodworking trades in the course of time, and local 76 of the up-
holsterers, and 76-B.
The arrangement was that the old upholsterers local in New York
did not have enough Communist strength in the 2 years they had bcv-n
in to enable them to swing it, so they {promised jNlustei-. the — at that
time — incumbent business agent of the New York local, the presidency
of the new CIO union now that they had lost Hotfman, and on this
basis Muster became the president of the international union and 76
local, although not a Communist-dominated local, but on the basis of
this deal the Communist strength and the Muster strength, with his
allieSj.were sufficient to SAving it into the CIO as a local.
No referendum of course was ever conducted. The strange per-
formance on this was that many of the people who were identified
with the Communists did not break immediately, although they were
under instruction to do so. In Los Angeles the local there was sum-
moned to a meeting by Harry Bridges, because the Los Angeles
local was supposed to have a majority of leftwingers as a result of
the comeback of 1935. Harry Bridges met secretly with what he
thought were all reliable people — some of them were not as reliable
as he thought they were — to tell them what was to be done to secede
and join the CIO along with everyone else.
This is the time Bridges had been made head of the CIO on the
west coast and was switching from the A. F. of L. at that time and the
movement was on.
The Rock-ford local, under this George Stewart, whose record they
did not know at the time, had no knowledge of his record, stayed in
the upholsterers, pledged loj- alty, as a matter of fact, and was warned
at a meeting in Chicago in December 1937 that inasmuch as they
were a new local, recently affiliated, they could go peaceably but if
they stayed and made any j^retense and went later they would be
penalized by the union defending its right.
What they did subsequently was to have a vote, and there was
only one dissenting vote, and they did go CIO in the early part of
1938. The convention founding the United Furniture Workers was
held in Rockford in 1938.
From the begining, as a result of this unconsummated deal which
had been broken up by the upholsterers footwork in 1937, there was
a great deal of dissension over the political issue. The political issue
was never possible of submerging in the United Furniture Workers
CIO because of the background. It is our opinion that Morris
Muster, who I might say is a man of identically the same tempera-
ment as David Lasser, that Morris Muster was^ never a member of
the Comuiunist Party, but he did collaborate with them completely.
28 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The test of this collaboration of Morris Muster is to be found in the
test of the crisis of March 1943 in United States-Russian relations
as reflected in the labor movement.
On the same weekend of March 1943 Admiral Stanley, the Ameri-
can iVmbassador, delivered an ultimatum to the Soviet demanding
that they give publicity in the press to the extensive lend-lease and
Litvinov, in Washington, simultaneously announced to President
Green, of the A. F. of L., and Phil Murray, of the CIO, that two
Polish Jewish trade-union leaders. Alter and Ehrlich, honored and
respected leaders of the Jewish labor movement in Poland for 25
years before the outbreak of war, who had been arrested upon the
Soviet occupation of eastern Poland, had been released a month fol-
lowing the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany, and had disappeared
subsequently, that these two men who had been personally intervened
for by the whole labor movement in the United States and whom
"Wendell Willkie had submited a personal request to Stalin for their
release, had been executed on the charges that they were aiding the
Nazis in Poland.
These of course were Jewish labor leaders, known and respected
throughout the world.
This caused a crisis in the whole Soviet alinement in the labor move-
ment, and it is in this connection that we have to establish how
complete was the domination of the President of the United Furni-
ture Workers by the Communists in this State.
A mass meeting of protests over the Alter-Ehrlich assassinations
by the Soviet was organized in INIecca Temple, New York, and here
came almost all the old European unions. The president of the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers Bank in New York, one Adolph
Held, was an old personal friend of years standing of the murdered
men, but he was called by Sidney Hillman, president of the Amal-
gamated and warned if he dared attend that meeting at the temple,
his connection with the union — he had been president of the union's
bank of New York — would cease automatically. Held did defy him
and turned up at that meeting and he was replaced as president of
the bank the following week by a young socialite fellow-traveling
lawyer of New York.
Although Held had been, as I say, president of the bank from the
beginning.
Muster's connection with this was related to me directly following
the incident by James B. Carey, the secretary of the CIO, who did
attend and speak at that meeting. He said by the evening of the
meeting he had received calls from every identified Communist leader
in the CIO threatening him that if he attended that meeting they
would do everything from attacking him in the convention to, as Joe
Curran said, bloody his nose for him.
There was only one person among the group they had their fingers
in control of that had not called, and that was Morris Muster of the
furniture workers. 'Wliile Carey was sitting at dinner a call came
and he picked up the telephone. He said "Hello, Morris." Muster
at the other end said, "How did you know I was calling." He went
on to tell him he knew why he was calling because he had been called
by Saul Mill, the whip of the Communist forces in New York City,
and told to call. He said yes, he had. But he never made his argu-
ment because Carey said he told him his side of it first and he never
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 29
bothered afterward. He didn't have the push. But he had been to
the phice where he had on that political purpose to make the call.
That is how much he was under their control.
This issue stayed under cover until the fall of 1945. At that time
President Hoffman of the upholsterers' union following the war made
several proposals for the maintenance of industrial peace, one for
the arbitration of any disputes before strikes which was made at the
Furniture Manufacturers' Association, and privately he sent a mes-
sage to Muster, whom he did not regard as a Communist, whom he
regarded merely as a soft stooge which the Communists used as a
front man, that he would like to agree not to compete in the organiza-
tion of workers and because of the inevitable clashes that would
follow if some agreement could be reached.
Subsequent to that a meeting was held in the Hotel IMcAlpin in
New York along about September of 1945, and at this meeting there
were present in addition to President Hoffman and myself, and one
or two other vice presidents from the upholsterers' union, Muster,
Pizer, Perlow, and one or two others whose names are not important.
It was a comparatively small meeting.
On the way down the hall after the meeting Hoffman in my presence
said to Muster, "Just what is the idea of your being so close to Pizer
here? After all, we know where Morris stands." Muster said, "Oh,
no, you have Morris all wrong. He has changed. He is all broken
off from that connection completely."
Muster put his arm around Pizer and his arm around Hoffman and
said, "This is a new situation." Perlow, of course, nobody made any
implication that he was. Everybody knew he was a tough, hard party
supporter. But Pizer — well, it so happens that Pizer had tried the
same thing on Sal B. Hoffman in 1937, 8 years before, had paraded
before him as a person who was not really on the in. Later on he broke
down and frankly admitted that the only thing was that he, Pizer,
in 1937 was, along with Jack Hochstadt, in the party, in the top party
faction, in the upholsterers situation, and he voted 2 against the 3
others, namely, Sirota and Perlow, not to push the issue to split the
upholsterers' union. Pie explained that he had taken this matter to
Jack Stachel, and the majority had been upheld and that was it.
This was Pizer's double role in 1937, first to present himself to Hoff-
man as a nonparty person, a person Avho was independenit, broken away
from his old associations which sent him into it, and then franldy to
tell them it was merely a matter of dissent within the party faction and
a split in which he was in the minority and overruled by the party dic-
tator. Jack Stachel.
This set the stage for 1945-46.
(Wliereupon, at 1 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p. m. the same day.)
AFTER RECESS
Senator Buti,er. You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR G. McDOWELL— Continued
Mr. Duffy. Mr. McDowell, was Morris Muster continuing in a posi-
tion as president of the United Furniture Workers of America during
this period of 1945 ?
43903—541 3
30 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. ISIcDowELL. Morris Muster was at that time president and had
been president of the United Furniture Workers of America, CIO,
since its founding convention in Rockford in 1938, and he did con-
tinue to be president after this date until July 1, 1946.
May I give further background for the conferences?
Mr. DuTFT. If you would, please.
Mr. McDo^\ai:LL. Subsequent to this initial conference at the Hotel
McAlpin in New York City, at which time at the adjournment of the
conference there occurred this exchange between President Sal B.
Hoffman and Morris Muster and Morris Pizer, in which, as indicated
in the account of the conversation, Muster indicated his belief in
Pizer's presence that Pizer was now a good fellow and no longer serv-
ing the Communist interests, but one of us — my recollection is that
President Hoffman at that time expressed skepticism about it to
both Muster and Pizer's face, and Muster reassured him, but Pizer
smiled but made no response.
It should be further recorded that Muster, in conversations in the
course of these conferences, indicated that he had been very antago-
nistic to the Communists during the period of the Soviet-Nazi pact,
understandably so, and of course he and all his family are Jewish,
and he indicated in these conversations that Pizer had also, during
that period at least, broken away.
There were subsequent conferences held to discuss this matter of
a no-raiding agreement between us. One was held in November in
the offices of the United Furniture Workers on Fifth Avenue. A
subsequent conference was held finally in the very early spring of
1946, at which time the conferences were abandoned because in each
case of each proposal made by the Upholsterers International Union
for the agreement that one union or the other should leave another area
of the industry alone to be covered by collective bargaining activities
of the other, objections were raised, whether it was on a trade basis or
on a State basis, and finally in private conversation at the end of
the early spring 1946 conference, Pizer and Perlow indicated that
their only interest was to persuade the upholsterers to quit calling the
United Furniture Workers Union leaders Communists, and if we
would do that they thought peace and harmony would abide, and no
formal agreement of any kind would be necessary.
Subsequent to the last conference held. President Hoffman related
to me immediately on his return one afternoon that he had had a pri-
vate telephone call from Morris Pizer, that Pizer had invited him to
have lunch with him in Philadelphia to discuss a trade problem in
relation to one of the concerns with which both of our unions had
some collective bargaining relationships, and that in the course of
this luncheon Hoffman, with the background of Pizer's 1937 kidding
of him about having left the organization and then confessing that
the only thing that was involved was that he belonged to the soft
minority within the party fraction within the Upholsterers Union in
New York — and that was the whole story — and he had been reversed
by Jack Stachel, the director of the Communist Party, and that they
therefore had had to go through with the split and the attempt to
break up the Upholsterers Union in 1937: althougli he would have pre-
ferred to have followed a somewhat different tactic, it was not a
difference of policy. It was not a difference with the party's instruc-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 31
tions on basic policy. This was the record, and knowing this, Presi-
dent Hoffman told me of another incident to illustrate the duplicity
of the man, Pizer. Prior to the breakaway of the Communist group
for the second time from the Upholsterers International Union at the
end of 1937 to form the CIO, and of course with a push in this case
from the union, a complaint had been lodged against Morris Muster
as business agent of the local union 76 in New York. The complaint
was that he had not paid his assessment in a strike assessment that
had been levied in the early part of 1937.
The laws of the international union are so drawn that no one is
eligible for office unless he is in continuous good standing for 2 years
previous to their nomination. Continuous good standing means that
you have never been in arrears with respect to any obligation.
Muster was summoned to the International Union office and asked if
this were true. Muster said yes, it was true, he had not paid the
assessment, but the reason he had not paid the assessment was that he
didn't think that as business agent he was obliged to pay the assess-
ment, as an officer.
Pizer accompanied Muster on this interview. Wlien Hoffman then
turned to Pizer and asked, "Did you tell him that as an officer he did
not have to pay the assessment?" Pizer said he had told Muster.
Then he asked Pizer, "Did you pay the assessment?" for he was also
an officer of that same local union. And he said, "Yes, I paid the
assessment."
At that point President Hoffman pointed out that under the laws
he had no choice but to disqualify Muster from holding further office
after the beginning of 1936. His only powers as International Presi-
dent enabled him to allow Muster to continue to finish out his term, but
the law is so rigid that when it came up for renomination in the fall —
all elections in those days were for a maximum of 1-year term — Muster
was out of his union job.
Therefore, during this period. Muster was in the identical position
that the young man, George Smerkin, alias Stewart, was in in 1933.
He had been trapped by the Communists into being ineligible for
office under the old setup, and therefore he had a choice of either being
nothing or becoming an international president.
With this complete cul-de-sac in which they had him, he was avail-
able at all times to be their stooge in 1937. He was not a too willing
stooge, but he was in a position where they had a person who, unless
they were a very honorable and scrupulous person, would be inevitably
tempted to take this way out, which would leave them in the movement.
The other way he would go back to the bench. That would have been
the only choice.
^ This is an example of the duplicity, the smiling, open-faced admis-
sion of duplicity on the part of the man Pizer. He admitted that he
had counseled his friend, so to speak, to a course ; he admitted that he
then had carefully avoided following the same course, and he made
no apology for it whatsoever.
Therefore, this is the individual, again, who in the fall of 1945 and
the spring of 1946 let Muster believe that this time he was no longer
a loyal servitor of the Communists. This was a strategic deception,
because on June , 1946, the biennial convention of the furniture work-
ers met in the city of Detroit, and from the opening of this con-
vention to the hour that it adjourned, it was unable to transact any
32 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
business because the Communist issue split the convention right down
the middle.
At the critical moment on the roUcall vote which determined the
control of the convention, Muster assured friends that Pizer would
be his supporter ; but at that moment Pizer cast his vote on the Com-
munist sicle, and control passed openly into the hands of the Com-
munists on the board as far as the convention was concerned.
At this moment, having been in session for 5 days and the issue
being so bitter as recorded in the press of the day, 5 days of conven-
tion were unable to transact the adoption of any business whatsoever.
They could never get past the credentials committee's reports.
At the end of the convention they finally decided to elect officers.
Muster was elected in a contemptuous gesture, with the Communists
in control of the convention, without opposition, as president. But
all his supporters at this convention, where Muster for the first time
had challenged the Communists, his supporters refused to take office
and took their appeal to the office of Phil Murray, president of the
CIO, with the demand that he intervene and clean up this situation,
which was headed up hj a man, the secretary-treasurer, by the name of
Max Perlow.
Following this appeal to Phil Murray to intervene and take over the
affairs, the appeal being made by Muster, who remained helpless in
the office but still with the title and powers of president, appealing
to Phil Murray to intervene and recognize this as an abnormal and
illegal situation because the convention majority was on the basis of
loaded per capita of certain locals which were carrying members in the
armed services, and these members, nonvoting in the election of dele-
gates, were nevertheless claimed by the Communists for the purpose
of controlling the convention. That is, they did not represent dues
payments because no dues were paid by soldiers.
That was something we adopted in our union, and this union in
peculiar fashion always copies administrative measures probably a
month or so afterward. They copied the same thing. They had that
system.
So this was a basis for legal intervention by the president of the
parent organization, CIO.
Murray, however, refused, after some lengthy discussion. The
reason for that can now be revealed, as this was a matter that I had
personal knowledge of. The appeal was made to Murray again dur-
ing the month of June. He reserved answer but indicated by the 25th
of June that he would not intervene; that some measure might be
taken to amalgamate the two unions, Furniture Workers and the
International Woodworkers of America on the west coast of the United
States, primarily, who, however, had a terrific problem over the Com-
munist issue within their organization at that very precise moment,
also revolving around the secretary-treasurer of that union, who was
a Communist and who since has been removed.
This was no solution for the anti-Communist elements in the United
Furniture Workers. In the early weeks of June they came into our
union — they told us of the situation in our office in Philadelphia, and
they requested tliat we not take partisan advantage of their situation
by moving in on their supporters, but that we support them in their
effort to take over and rid themselves of the Communists within their
own union without imperiling their position. This we agreed to do.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 33
I was present when President Hoflfman agreed that we would do
this. We would make no move, we would encourage them. We would
even give them financial support to fight the Communists. We would
make no attempt, as the word goes, to take them over.
This went very well except that we warned the committee that
came to our office from the United Furniture Workers after this
convention — we warned them that in our opinion, after having been
a willing front for the Communists all these years, Morris Muster
did not have the intestinal fortitude to make a fight, but we agreed
to support them anyhow.
On the 30th day of June 1946 I had convoked a conference of the
upholsterers union locals in the southeastern States in the city of
Asheville, N. C. My conference was finished on Saturday afternoon,
and on Sunday morning, together with the local union officer from
Asheville, I walked up "the hill to Mountain Park Inn above Ashe-
ville, N. C. I had in my mind a newspaper from the previous day
indicating that as a result of the expiration of price controls, and
so forth, as of that evening, June 30, 1946, newspapers throughout
the United States were striving desperately to locate Phil Murray to
get the usual statement on the issue. They had been unable to find
him.
I walked into the entrance to Mountain Park Inn and found several
people whom I knew as officers on the steel workers, CIO, board.
There was a secret meeting going on in the Mountain Park Inn of the
board, which no one, even in the office in Pittsburgh, was allowed to
divulge the location of.
From a member of the board at that meeting I secured the following
story of the crisis, which now relates to the United Furniture Workers
situation.
At the opening of this session which had been demanded by Clinton
Golden, at that time second ranking man to Philip Murray witliin
the steel workers, how at Harvard University as part of their trade-
union progTam — Clinton Golden had demanded a showdown in the
steel workers official family saying that one Lee Pressman and his
Commie supjDorters must get out of the steel workers, or he, Clinton
Golden, would get out. That was the issue, and that required the
secret meeting.
The battle had been going on all Saturday and had been resolved
that Sunday morning. May I correct that date. That Sunday
morning would have been June 30. It was the 30th day of June,
but the OPA had expired as of the last week day, which was the
night before, Saturady. That was the connection in which they
souglit to find Phil Murray, who was in Asheville, N. C, inaccessible.
By Sunday morning, Van A. Bittner, subsequently deceased, from
West Virginia, who had joined in the showdown with Clint Golden,
insisting that either they sliould resign or Pressman should get out —
Van Bittner had been detached from the combination and Golden
stood alone. The result was that afternoon of June 30, Sunday,
Golden's resignation was accepted, the second ranking man in steel
from its inception, has been accepted, and Lee Pressman had been con-
firmed in his position in the steel workers, CIO.
Mr. Duffy. What was the official capacity that you refer to ?
Mr. McDowell. He was in a position which was not formal but
which was equivalent to vice president. He had been the adminis-
34 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
trative officer of the steel workers up until that date from its forma-
tion in 1936, for 10 yeai-s, and at this time he made the choice, and the
choice was given back to him.
A cover was converted to tliat under which Mr. Golden was to serve
as liaison man with Government, between the steel workers and the
Government, but he stuck by his resolve. He held no further official
position in the steel workers union.
Senator Butler. You say he has since been deceased?
Mr. McDowell. No. Clinton Golden is at Harvard. He is out
of the labor union, conducting a trade-union school at Harvard.
(Discussion oE the record.)
Mr. Duffy. May we go back on the record now ?
Mr. McDowell. The interesting bearing of this on the furniture
workers case is to throw light on subsequent policy of the CIO in
relation to the United Furniture Workers, CIO. After this exhaust-
ing battle, Phil Murray on July 1, the following Monday morning,
faced the fact that on the front page of the New York Times was the
searing resignation as president of the CIO Furniture Workers, of
Morris Muster, on the grounds that as a trade unionist his record
"would not permit me to remain liead of a Communist-controlled
organization."
That is a quotation from his statement. He said at that time that
a small minority of a thousand Communists dominated the 42,000-
member union. The statement is a matter of official record. It was
printed in the New York Times of July 1.
This of course resulted in the opening up of the entire situatioji.
The people who had previously asked our union to stay away from it
asked us now to intervene and to accept their affiliation. A large
number of locals, stretching all the way from Philadelphia to Wis-
consin, seceded and attempted to make their secession from the United
Furniture Workers into the Upholsterers International Union
effective.
This was the most extensive desertion, proportionate to its member-
ship, that occurred in any international union over such a political
issue so far as I have been able to determine. It included also the
secession of a large proportion of the staff of this union.
The battle to confirm the secession legally by elections under the
auspices of the National Labor Eeiations Board extended from this
resignation of Muster in 1946, July, until late in 1948 before the wave
of secessions had completely ceased and before the organization had
been able to stabilize.
An emergency was declared, and the successor in the United Furni-
ture Workers to Morris Muster became, namely, the person who had
on previous occasions successfully betrayed him, Morris Pizer, not the
well-known Communist secretary-treasurer, Perlow, who was identi-
fied beyond all possibility, but Pizer, who had acquired this reputation
of being the compromiser and the conciliator, and so forth and so on,
contrary to his private conversations indicating he Avas a hard party
man at all times.
This secession resulted in the transfer of probably between 7,000
and 8,000 members, actual dues-paying members, from the United
Furniture Workers Union to the Upholsterers International Ujiion,
but it came at a time when the full resources of the CIO, regardless
of the issue, were thrown behind the United Furniture Workers, CIO.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 35
I give an example of that in the fact that wherever we had a Labor
Board case, every pressure that could be brought to bear, official and
unofficial, on the Labor Relations Board by the CIO — and that was
considerable in 1946 — was brought to bear to delay these elections,
where the people had expressed themselves by overwhelming votes in
meetings, and then their collective-bargaining business would be tied
up in knots for weeks and months as the Board delayed or discussed
whether they could or could not give them elections.
In some cases the Board's position was supported by actual rules
affecting existing contracts, and in other cases we found there was no
explanation. Contracts were not necessarily a bar, but there was con-
stant delay in the process of the Board.
This resulted in the reconsolidation of the now clearly Communist-
dominated Furniture Workers Union of the Grand Rapids situation,
for example. Here is an interesting example of what selfish policy
leads to in these circumstances.
Walter Reuther, president of the auto workers, over the bitter oppo-
sition of the Communist-led clique in his own union, did nevertheless
in the course of the campaign for ratification of the people's choice
in Grand Rapids at a union meeting to transfer away from the old
furniture workers outfit, sent his brother, Victor Reuther, in to make
a radio speech on his behalf in Grand Rapids, in which he declared
that this story of Communist domination of the furniture workers,
although it was attested to by the man who had been its only inter-
national president for the previous 9 years, who resigned on that ac-
count, that this was a figment of other people's imagination and that
there was nothing to it.
It should be entered in the record and noted that the Auto Workers,
CIO, exactly 2 years later, at the expiration of the contract, renego-
tiated by the furniture workers after their reinstatement in this plant,
chartered an auto workers local in this same plant of the American
Seating Co. on the grounds that the furniture workers was Commu-
nist dominated, 2 years later.
This is an example of the problem, legislatively, that you have to
deal with in the utilization of selfish and ambitious purposes of indi-
viduals by the Connnunist operation.
Senator Butler. Do you believe at this moment that there is any
substantial Communist element in Reuther's Automobile Workers
Union ?
Mr. McDowell. Oh, yes. I think that they are, in my opinion,
within sight of at least nominal control of Ford Local 600, which is
the largest local of the whole international union.
Senator Butler. Local 600 ?
Mr. McDowell. Yes.
Senator Butler. Where is that, in Detroit ?
Mr. McDowell. In Detroit. That local has approximately 50,000
members. That has as many members in that one local union, almost,
as we have in the United States in the furniture industry.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McDo^vELL. There were approximately 2,000 people involved
in the Grand Rapids situation, in which the auto workers took the
position, first, that their CIO obligations compelled them to be politi-
cally colorblind in 1947, when the election actually occurred; but 2
years later, when it was to their advantage to keep it in the CIO, they
36 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
suddenly announced that they had known it was Communist domi-
nated all alono;, and chartered it as an auto workers local, and it still
is an auto workers local.
The furniture workers' history from here on in becomes relevant
to the issue of Communist domination and their method of operation
under the conditions obtaining in the postwar period and under the
conditions of major hostility of American sentiment toward commu-
nism.
In 1947, August, there became effective the Management-Labor
Relations Act, known as the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which act re-
quired, in order to use the services of the National Labor Relation
Board in representation elections, and so forth, that officers file affi-
davits attesting that they are not members of the Communist Party or
supporters of the Communist cause. In the case of the upholsterers,
we have had this rule and enforced this rule as part of the taking of
an oath of office since 1939. This, therefore, represented no problem.
However, the United Furniture Workers was faced immediately
with the problem, should they comply or should they not comply?
As far as we are able to determine, and our intelligence service was
pretty good, Perlow and other Communists within the furniture work-
ers were advised as early as October of 1947 that, if necessary to con-
tinue in their positions of trade-union leadership, they would be
allowed to sign the affidavits after filing pro forma resignations from
the party. But they were not encouraged to do so. This was only
an allowance in extremis.
There was, therefore, no compliance on the part of anv of the Com-
munist-dominated unions in the fall of 1947 or 1948. This was made
practical, and the postponement of the application of the party policy
to comply only under necessity was made possible due to the fact that
Lee Pressman persuaded Phil Murray that he must follow the proce-
dure of the United Mine Workers and defy the law and refuse to
comply or to be eligible under it. This gave the cover which was neces-
sary for the Communists to avoid compliance in the early 2 years.
They were, however, prepared to comply under the party orders, as we
get the information, at any time it became necessary to hold their
trade-union positions.
They did not comply at any time in 1948, but the issue was a bitter
issue at their convention held in Chicago in June of 1948. At that
convention, on a rollcall vote successfully manipulated, they refused
even to allow the question of compliance or noncompliance *to be put
to the referendum vote of the membership.
This created a crisis within their organization, and in the fall of
1948, the vote against compliance or submission of the question of
compliance in the furniture workers convention was given as 22,552
to 16,090. '
Mr. Duffy. Let me have that again now.
Mr. McDowell. This was the vote in the 1948 Chicajro convention
of the CIO Furniture Workers Union, which voted against compli-
ance with the Taft-Hartley law and the filing of the anti-Communist
affidavits, and which also, by this vote as given above, refused to per-
mit the issue to be voted upon by the members in referendum.
This extraordinary exertion of power even to deny a referendum
resulted in a series of crises within the United Furniture Workers
Union in the successive meetings of its general executive board, in
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 37
the course of which Pizer emerged as the leader of the compliance
forces in 1948 and 1949, and Perlow as the leader of those opposed
to compliance duplicating the reported division in the party fraction
over a hard as against a soft policy in the upholsterers union as of
1937, of the same people.
In 1937, according to Pizer's own report to president Hoffman,
Pizer and Hochstadt had wanted a conciliatory policy on the seces-
sion of the upholsterers, and Perlow, Sirota, and Magliacano had
wanted the most rigid application of the party's current policy. This
is exactly duplicated as to the personalities in the struggle which
preceded the CIO Furniture Workers Union convention in 1948 and
following.
I have just run across some data from the New York Times on
the origin of this peculiar fight between Pizer and Perlow.
Mr. Duffy. Put it on the record. Will this lead up to the
Mr. McDowell. All this now bears on the question of Pizer's policy.
Mr. DuFFT. Will this lead up to the expulsion hearing ?
Mr. McDowell. Yes.
As the CIO convention of 1949 approached, a new factor affected
the decision of the United Furniture Workers. It was clear that
Phil Murray finally had determined to challenge the open defiance
of CIO policy by the Communist-led clique of affiliated unions headed
by Flarry Bridges of the longshoremen on the Pacific coast.
In accordance with its prior announcement, the CIO convention
did adopt an order requiring all unions to conform with the CIO
policies or be subject to expulsion. However, the United Furniture
Workers, CIO, had given way to the compliance issue, first of all,
the Communist-influenced unions, some months before. A referen-
dum had been initiated and its outcome was never in doubt.
As a resulf. out of a clear blue sky at the beginning of June 1949,
the United Furniture Workers' officers, including the open and at
all times avowed Communist Max Perlow, filed affidavits of non-
Communist membership. Because of personal history, Perlow felt
it necessary to issue a simultaneous statement to the general press
declaring that he had changed none of his views or loyalties from
the condition obtaining before he formally resigned from the party
in order legally to execute the affidavit.
This, in the opinion of all legal consultants that we could call upon,
made his affidavit in violation of the law.
Consequently, on June 6, 1949, President Sal B. Hoffman, of the
Upholsferers' international Union, filed telegraphic protest with At-
torney General Tom Clark, and with General Counsel Denham, of the
National Labor Relations Board.
The telegram to Mr. Tom Clark, Attorney General, Department of
Justice, Washington, D. C, under date of June 6, and identical with
telegram sent to General Counsel Denham, was as follows :
Urgently protest and request investigation of filing of compliance afBdavit by
Max Perlow, secretary-treasurer, United Furniture Workers, CIO. Acceptance
of such compliance, accompanied by publication of continued devotion to Com-
munist principles, would make mockery of tlie law and those of us who, like
ourselves, have complied regardless of cost. Under our own laws, we have spe-
cifically refused to accept such pro forma compliance and have expelled officers
making such plea, regardless of time or occasion. My administrative assistant,
Mr. McDowell, will spend this entire week in Washington and be glad to discuss
38 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
matters with you further. Address, McDowell, 1740 K Street NW ; phone,
Executive 7786. Signed, Sal B. Hoffman, President, Upholsterers' International
Union.
May I state for the record that General Counsel Denham advised
us that he had forwarded our protest and the affidavits to the Attor-
ney General, in accord with his interpretation of his responsibility
under the law, and the prosecuting division of the Department of
Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation did invite us to supply
material, and a complete record of the supporting newspaper state-
ments, the past record, affiliations, offices held, activities participated
in, and even information as to the party name of Charles Lawrence
under which Perlow held his actual party membership, was furnished
to the Department of Justice.
We continued to supply information, including recordings which
showed in the Grand Rapids situation of American Seating Co. that
at a word from a known Communist goon-squad leader, Louie Kaplan,
formerly of the shipbuilding workers, and who has had established
connections with J. Peters, Communist espionage agent, IMax Perlow
within an hour confirmed arrangements made by said Kaplan, who
was employed by the United Electrical Workers, expelled from the
CIO at the 1949 convention, and whose word had only the weight
officially of an officer of another union, unless it carried political
authority.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McDowell. Outside of a few telephone conversations in early
1950, nothing was ever heard of this case again from the Department
of Justice.
The decision of the CIO convention in the fall of 1949 provoked a
new crisis after compliance within the furniture workers. It is notice-
able here that the furniture workers was the very first of all unions
with Communist officers to adopt the policy of compliance, and I would
point out that in a conversation between myself, organizer Harry
Smulyan, S-m-u-1-y-a-n, and the above-referred-to Luigi Kaplan,
representing the UE, we were told by this pretty authoritative Com-
munist operative in Grand Rapids, in August of 1949, (1) that the
UE was going to comply also with the Taft-Hartley law; (2) that
they were going to withdraw in advance of the expulsion action of
the CIO convention; and (3) that they had been approached by repre-
sentatives of Jolin L. Lewis to transfer their affiliation to his district
60 organization upon their separation from the CIO.
Mr. Duffy. To transfer their affiliation to the United Mine
Workers ?
Mr. McDowell. To the United Mine Workers, upon their exclusion
or departure from the CIO. This invitation was not only to the UE,
but to all the CIO unions who were going to be in difficulties with CIO
policy at the forthcoming convention.
The first two items were confirmed by subsequent events, namely,
the UE did comply, as did in succession the other Communist-domi-
nated unions within the CIO ; and the UE did withdraw, somewhat
in anticipation of expulsion from the CIO by its convention action.
In the case of the United Furniture Workers, it was clearly a case
that no substantial union could survive under the United Furniture
Workers' name without CIO support. It is not an independent or
self-supporting organization, and the CIO could have taken over its
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 39
major portions in short order, either in a new union or amalgamating
it with an existing union which had solved its Communist problem,
relatively speaking, in the case of the International Woodworkers of
The same division within the United Furniture Workers board as
it appeared on compliance developed on the matter of comphance
with the CIO convention decision following its adjournment. On
November 20, 1949, a Sunday, a statement was issued by Morris Pizer,
apparently in Chicago, stating the United Furniture Workers would
stay in the CIO, and therefore comply. On November 21, 1949, a
Monday, a statement by Perlow was issued to the press, gently chiding
Pizer for issuing a statement prior to a general executive board meet-
ing scheduled for December 6 and 7.
However, the New York Times says it received Perlow's statement
in the same envelope and by the same messenger, with a copy of
Pizer's statement that they would stay within the CIO.
Perlow the same day, according to the postmark, sent out a letter
and his press release, but not Pizer's, mailing them to the entire
United Furniture Workers' list.
There is reason to believe that Pizer's statement was an original
hasty reaction to the discovery that, following the CIO action now
on record to put the furniture workers on trial, practically no section
of their remnants in the Midwest and even the big 76 local in New
York would stand for voluntary departure from the CIO.
The reaction of Perlow could scarcely have been so prompt unless
Pizer consulted him step by step, or else that Pizer had been preparing
to break with Perlow during and before the CIO convention.
On December 8, 1949, the United Furniture Workers issued a state-
ment denying having refused to seat two members on the board at
this meeting, and quoting Pizer as denying he issued any statement
against undemocratic procedures in this case before the board.
A press committee composed of Gus Brown, of Los Angeles ; Frank
O'Connor, of Boston ; and Bernard Mintner, of New York, all hard-
ened, recognized Conmiimists, was appointed to speak exclusively for
the board at these meetings.
On December 9, 1949, the United Furniture Workers board issued
a statement announcing the defeat of Pizer's motion to stay in the CIO
unconditionally, and adoption of two resolutions against the CIO
favoring remaining only with autonomy, which resolutions were re-
ferred to the June 1950 convention in Chicago.
Ostensibly from this date forward the controversy between Presi-
dent Pizer and Secretary-Treasurer Perlow became more and more
bitter. The convention of the United Furniture Workers in June of
1950 did vote overwhelmingly to comply with CIO policy.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McDowell. I think we now come to the essence of the thing.
At the showdown convention of the United Furniture Workers,
the issue was whether to stay in the CIO or not. Although the debate
was bitter and the division sharp, the only mention of the word "Com-
munist" in any of the discussion was made by Allan Haywood, an
outsider representing the CIO and presenting the ultimatum to the
convention to comply or be expelled.
The convention made precisely one change in the official family,
namely, replacing Max Perlow, unqualified admitted member of the
40 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Communist Party, by his own statement to the press even after filing
the Taft Hartley affidavit, and his replacement was Fred Fulford of
Indiana, at all times since his first identification with the union, begin-
ning in 1938, a loyal follower of the Communist clique within the
union.
Senator Butler. Do you think he was a Communist ?
Mr. McDowell. Fulford, as a matter of course, was accepted as one
of the Communists, and when named to his face by myself in the city
of Jasper in 1946 and 1947, he did not even bother to go to the trouble
of denying it. He just let it be assumed that it was an established
fact, and made no challenge to it.
However, this reform, anti-Communist faction is exclusively made
up of people identified with the Communist movement in the past in
this union. Starting with Pizer, who made no bones about his Com-
munist Party membership, up until 1946 at least, William Gilbert of
Chicago who, together with his wife, until their removal to Chicago
from Massachusetts were on the Sam Adams School of the Commu-
nist Party in Boston, Jack Hockstadt of New York, always identified
as a Communist but also as a personal friend of Pizer's; and on the
board, the convention after this supposedly bitter clean-out fight left
vacancies for the hard-core Communists, such as Brown of Los Angeles
and Magliacano of New Jersey, who on the surface refused at that time
to accept office on the general executive board.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McDowell. Bearing on the question of the validity of the
change of loyalty of Pizer and his supporters, all previously identified,
together with their opponent, Perlow, as active Communists, is the
series of events immediately preceding this convention and following it
to save the jobs of appointees prominently identified in the office as
Communist personnel.
The first of these was George Smerkin, alias Stewart, office man-
ager, previously identified as under Communist domination and direc-
tion as early as 1933 and subsequently. George Smerkin was fired on
the thinnest of pretexts within a few weeks before the convention by
the obviously condemned and slated-to-go Perlow. No substantial
reason was given.
The next most important post in the office, also appointive — impor-
tant, that is, next to secretary-treasurership of the union — is the direc-
torship of the insurance fund. The director of this is one Abraham
Zide, Z-i-d-e. This individual, even more than Perlow, is a publicly
identified Communist of many years' standing in New York. Practi-
cally a standing officer of each year's Communist May Day celebration.
Further, this individual was considered the closest personal friend of
Perlow. Yet Perlow certainly foreseeing his own removal at the
forthcoming convention, a few weeks before the convention fires his
close friend and party associate as director of the insurance fund on the
ostensible given grounds that he had failed to pay a claim for some $75
due in a maternity case to Max Perlow's own daughter, employed in
the office.
Immediately following the removal of Perlow at the convention, the
new and yet the old president, Morris Pizer, with a great flourisli and
release to the press, reappoints George Smerkin (alias Stewart) as
office manager, and Abraham Zide as director of the insurance fund.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 41
In the normal course, no procedure or tactic would have been more
effective to insure the least possible turnover of office personnel with
all the strategic positions that they had following the ostensible change
at the convention.
Further hearing on the validity of the change of position is the fact
that in the case of Gus Brown and local 576 of the United Furniture
Workers in Los Angeles, Calif., also admittedly, openly a long-time
Communist-dominated local, pressure from the strongly anti-Com-
munist State CIO council obviously and publicly applied, led Pizer
to disestablish this local, suspend its charter, and set up a new local
which, however, conveniently occupies quarters in the same building
with the expelled local, and expelled Gus Brown.
However, in the case of local 140, United Furniture Workers, in
the city of New York, where no such CIO pressure was applied, this
local, under Alex Sirota, has continued to be affiliated with the inter-
national union, to be identified as a center of Communist Party trade
union activity, to defy the international union, to publish bulletins
vilifying and slandering the officers of the international, including
Pizer, to separate its insurance fund from the international union's
insurance fund, maldng it completely financially independent, and
to this date, so far as known, no action to terminate the charter or
affect the charter and standing of local 140 has been taken by Pizer.
Senator Butler. That does not look like they are fighting too much,
does it ?
Mr. McDo-\vELL. An analysis can further be made of the attacks on
Pizer in the columns of George Morris, the labor columnist of the
Communist Daily Worker, and it will be found that the impeachment
is made, but by Communist standards of vilification and abuse it is a
soft impeachment, indeed. I can speak from experience, because I
have seen what they can say when they are talking about myself or
anyone who is actually in the enemy camp as far as they are concerned.
It should be noted that as of October 19, 1951, more than a year
after this convention at which the change was made, the fight between
Pizer's own local 76 and this Communist-dominated 140, had gone to
the point that acid was being thrown in a contest between the two
unions for membership in a shop, and yet no action has been taken by
Pizer to terminate the charter of the Communist local that has at-
tacked in this fashion his own local union and its officers.
I don't know whether it is worth putting that clipping in the record.
Senator Buti.er. Yes, you can make that a part of the record.
(The clipping referred to follows:)
3 Seized as Vandals in Furniture Factory ; Offense Is Linked to Interunion
STRUOQIiE
(Special to the New York Times)
North Pelham, N. Y., October 19.— Three New York men were arrested here
early today in the factory of the Trans Furniture Co. at 14 First Street and ac-
cused of destroying new furniture with acid and knives. The police said the
offense stemmed from a jurisdictional fight between locals 76 and 140 of the
United Furniture Workers, CIO, for control of the factory's 25 employees
Damage to the furniture amounted to $1,700. The acid was so strong that it
had eaten into the trousers of two defendants, and when they were arraigned the
men wore cell blankets around their legs.
The defendants are Harold Antell, 26 years old, of 340 Pennsylvania Avenue
Brooklyn; Richard L. Koral, 27, of 350 Cathedral Parkway, New York, and
42 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Walter G. Donaldson, 36, of 1460 Beach Avenue, the Bronx, Antell and Donald-
son received the burns.
District Attorney George M. Fanelli of Westchester County appeared at the
arraignments before Justice of the Peace John Hyland and asked that l)ail be
set at $50,000 for each defendant. All were booked on charges of burglary and
malicious mischief. Bail of $40,000 each was ordered and none was provided.
Police Chief George Burrows said the case was related to the recent destruc-
tion of $9,000 worth of furniture in a New York factory involved in a tight between
the two locals. Some of the work of that factory was being performed by the
plant here, he said.
Both locals have members working for Trans Furniture, Chief Burrows
explained, and on September 26 local 140 began an all-out fight to control all
the workers. The chief declared that union records indicated that the three
men arrested today were members of local 140, although they intermittently
dv^nied it, refused to talk, or gave conflicting stories.
Midnight was chosen for breaking into the factory because police shifts take
place at that hour, the chief said. The intruders were seen entering an alley
beside the factory, however, and 5 regular policemen and 2 auxiliary policemen
surrounded the place. The intruders had smashed a window to gain entrance.
The chief said they possessed, in addition to the acid and knives, burglar tools,
stench bombs, and several vials of chemicals that could be used in starting
fires.
Mr. McDowell. I think at this point I will suspend this, as far as
the information bearing on the union is concerned.
I should like to point out that the imperceptible conversion of Pizer
and Fulford is matched by the also amazing conversion of J. Ruben,
jj.u-b-e-n, and the since deceased, I think it is, Gertrude Lane, of the
hotel and restaurant employees union in New York. As far away as
1935, I had my last contact with William Albertson, expelled from
the University of Pittsburgh with me in 1929, when officers of the
InternationalLadies Garment Workers Union in 1935 reported to me
that Albertson was in New York and was in charge of an alliance
between open racketeering elements and the Communists, which had
successfully taken over control of the New York hotel and restaurant
trades.
It has been reported to me that the interest of the Communist move-
ment in the control of the New York hotel and restaurant trades which,
like furniture, is not obvious until you consider that in the case of
the hotel and restaurant trades this gives them control over that
ahnost invisible person, the waiter, the hotel chambermaid, and all
hotel functionaries in the city of New York, which is the headquartere
of the United Nations and of other considerable economic, business,
political, military, and diplomatic activity.
As I indicated, it was our information that Albertson, who obvi-
ously, with his family ties directly in the Soviet Union, was very
close to direct communications — it has been reported to us, with some
verification, that the actual boss of Lane and Ruben, who have now
within the year and a half foresworn from Communist allegiance
publicly, was a representative of the Soviet secret police.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Duffy. Mr. McDowell, do you have any additional informa-
tion regarding the activities of any of the leadership of the United
Furniture Workers of America at this time ?
^Ir. McDowell. No. There is every indication that as of the tran-
sition in 1950 at the convention, each one of these people, except the
acknowledged hard-core Communists, namely, Gus Brown on the west
€oast, and Sirota and his staff in New York, have scrupulously ab-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 43
stained from even the slightest appearance of anything in connection
with even mildly middle-of-the-road liberal causes. They are pecu-
liarly circumspect.
Mr. Duffy. Do you think that the leadership of this labor organiza-
tion is actually in good faith in their denunciation, or at least their
refusal of accommodation of the Communist conspiracy or adherence
to the Communist doctrine since 1950, at which time the CIO saw fit
not to expel them ?
Mr. McDowell. They are the only exception. So far as I can de-
termine, the soft treatment meted out to them by Haywood and Mur-
ray, Haywood acting as the agent of Murray, was not related to any
facts within that union, but to the fact that both Murray and Hay-
wood felt deeply implicated because of their support to this union and
their refusal to deal with Muster's request for a cleanout in 1946.
Mr. Duffy. Off the record.
( Discussion olf the record. )
Mr. McDowell. It is most interesting to see the type of editorial
comment carried in the United Furniture Workers press, whose edi-
torial board is composed of international president Morris Pizer,
Fred Fulford, and George Strassler, and Michael De Cicco, D-e
C-i-c-c-o. Three of the four were identified over all the years as
Communists. George Strassler, who used the names of both Strassler
and Strass, was identified as part of the Trade Union Unity League
inheritance as early as 1940. There is no other record of him or iden-
tification, and there is no way of knowing whether he is Strassler or
Smerkin (alias Stewart) . I haven't been able to find out.
Mr. Duffy. You don't know whether they are the same person ?
Mr. McDowell. I don't know. Stewart's name has disappeared.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McDowell. There is one thing which double agents of the Com-
munists are not permitted until the very last stage in order to protect
their usefulness in that ultimate extremity, and that is to denounce
the Communists by name. In the editorial appearing in the United
Furniture Workers press as late as the issue of March 1953, under the
title "Peace and the UN," while a policy of negotiation is urged even
without a truce in Korea at that time, which was the Communist Party
line, the ostensibly anti-Communist references in the editorial care-
fully eschew the word "Communist," although they use general terms
such as "dictators" and "Stalin's heirs."
This needs to be compared with the similar remarkable performance
at the 1950 cleansing convention at which not one person in Pizer's
group ever identified Perlow and the opposition as Communists by
name, according to the record of the proceedings.
Senator Butler. That editorial will be received for the record.
(The editorial referred to follows:)
Peace and the U. N.
International tensions have been mounting at such a rate in the past few
months that a determined peace effort at this session of the United Nations is an
absolute necessity.
Many opinions to the contrary aside, such an effort can be made successfully
without sacrificing any of the moral principles held dear by democratic peoples.
For negotiation is as often a matter of laying one's cards on the table as it is
a matter of compromise.
44 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
At the present time, such an effort would mean that the United States, the
United Kingdom, France, and the other nations of tlie free world — wliile making
perfectly clear their intention to remain militarily and economically strong as
long as aggression threatens — would state again, but in more forceful terms,
their supitort of an enforceable scheme of international control of production
and distribution of both atomic and conventional weapons — coupled with an
international program of international and technical assistance to the devastated
and underdeveloped areas of the world.
In the case, specifically, of Korea, the ]>osition of the free world would be
that, as much as a truce is desirable, there is no reason why discussion of all
important issues involved in tlie Korean war should not be undertaken at the
United Nations immediately, without waiting for a battlefield truce, inasmuch as
many of the relevant issues already have found their way to the floor of the
U. N. General Assembly.
These are the kind of proposals that dictators such as Stalin's heirs can
understand. You cannot win their honest agreement to any principle in any
case, but you can convince them that peace is preferable to war when those
whom they would like to conquer are strong and determined and able to resist
aggression but yet, as they well know, prefer peace.
Mr. McDowell. In reference to a statement made this morning
in relation to the history of Chicago organizations in the unemployed
field, it should be noted that the Chicago Workers Committees on Un-
employment were organized in 1931 in opposition to the Communist
unemployed councils; that the IWA, Illinois Workers Alliance,
springing from this group, was apparently organized in formal fash-
ion in 1933 or the very beginning of 1934, and that those elements
represented in the Chicago Workers Committee on Unemployment
who were able to maintain themselves in the workers alliance after
the juncture with the Communists in April of 1936 did withdraw in
Illinois at the end of 1938 and the beginning of 1939, leaving the
workers alliance to collapse in the following year.
Senator Butler. Mr. McDowell, on behalf of the subcommittee,
I wish to extend to you our appreciation for your extremely valuable
and vital testimony that you have presented today.
This session will terminate subject to the call of the Chair.
(Whereu])on, at 4: 05 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to
the call of the Chair.)
SUBYEESIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOE
OEGANIZATIONS
THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1954
United States Senate,
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration
OF the Internal Security Act and Other Internal
Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington^ JD. C.
The task force of the subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 : 10
a. m., in room 341, Senate Office Building, Senator Herman Welker
(acting chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senators Welker (presiding) and Butler.
Present also : Senator Goldwater.
Richard Arens, special counsel ; and Frank W. Schroeder and Ed-
ward R. Duify, professional staff members.
Senator Welker. Senator Goldwater, will you stand and be sworn ?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you will give before
the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God ?
Senator Goldwater. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HON. BAERY GOLDWATER, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Senator Welker. Ybu are a Senator from the great State of
Arizona ?
Senator Goldwater. That is right.
Senator Welker. You may proceed with -your testimony in this
matter.
Senator Goldwater. Thank you. Senator Welker and Senator
Butler.
I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee to give
you some of my own remarks and to insert into the record some of the
prepared brief that my staff and people interested in this movement
which Senator Butler has started have prepared, regarding S. 1606,
which I hope that I will aid by S. 1254.
The people in Arizona have iDeen working on this for years.
International communism is against everything we believe in —
America, God, the dignity and rights of individuals, and democracy.
Communism is dedicated to world revolution and the dictatorship
of the proletariat. Its weapons in America are treachery, deceit, in-
filtration, espionage, sabotage, corruption, and terrorism. It is using
those weapons against us now — inside of our own country.
45
43903 — 54 4
46 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Tlie House Committee on Un-American Activities, in reporting on
the Internal Security Act of 1950 (U. S. Code Congressional Service
vol. 2, 81st Congress 2d sess., p. 3886) said :
The need for legislation to control Communist activities in the United States
cannot be questioned.
Over 10 years of investigation by the Committee on Un-American Activities
and by its predecessor committee has established (1) that the Communist move-
ment in the United States is foreign-controlled; (2) that its ultimate objective
with respect to the United States is to overthrow our free American institutions
in favor of a Communist totalitarian dictatorship to be controlled from abroad ;
(3) that its activities are carried on by secret and conspiratorial methods;
and (4) that its activities, both because of the alarming march of Communist
forces abroad and because of the scope and nature of Communist activities here
in the United States, constitute an immediate and powerful threat to the security
of the United States and the American way of life.
The findings which support these conclusions and the vast quantity
of evidence on which they are based are set forth in detail in the
numerous reports which connnittees of Congress have printed and
circulated.
There can be no compromise or appeasement between the ideals of
our Republic and communism. The Communists still follow the
Marxist line: "Parliaments are corrupt, and voting and legislating
are pleasant forms of rituals for deluding the workers."
Congress has passed several laws aimed at curbing subversive
activities.
The Alien Registration Act of 1940 made it a crime to advocate the
overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and
violence. While force and violence is a basic principle to which the
Communist Party members subscribe, the present line of the party,
in order to evade existing legislation, is to avoid the open advocacy of
force and violence and to resort to secret and conspiratorial methods.
Consequently, the act is rendered less effective in dealing with Com-
munist activities because of strategies and tactics of the Communists.
The McCormack Act of 1938 required registration of individuals
who are acting as agents of a foreign principal. The Communists are
skillful in deceit and in concealing their foreign ties.
The problem of how to enact laws to defend the Nation against the
Communist Party is a perplexing one, but one with which we must
keep wrestling. If we lose this battle, it will be because of com-
placency.
In safeguarding our own liberties, we must operate within the
framework of the Constitution. In 1950, in analyzing the problem,
the House committee said :
Communism as an economic, social, and political theory is one thing. Com-
munism as a secret conspiracy dedicated to subverting the interests of the
United States to that of a foreign dictatorship, is another.
The committee went on to say :
We hold no brief for the economic, social, and political theories which the
Communists advocate, but we contend that, under our constitutional system,
ideas must be combated with ideas and not with legislation. If communism in
the United States operated in the open, without foreign direction and without
attempting to set up a dictatorship subservient to a foreign power, legislation
directed against it would neither be justified nor necessary. This, however, is
not the case.
The committee said that "a careful analysis of the strategy and tac-
tics of communism in the United States discloses activities by reason
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 47
of which the committee has concluded that legislation can and should
be directed" against those strategies and tactics of the Communist
Party involving espionage.
Therefore, Congress passed the Internal Security Act of 1950
which made it unlawful for any officer or employee of the United
States to communicate any information classified by the President of
the United States as necessary to the security of the United States to
any representative of a foreign country, or any member of a Commu-
nist organization, and likewise made it illegal for any member of the
Communist organization, or foreign representative of a foreign gov-
ernment, to receive such information. The law also made it illegal
for a member of a Communist organization to hold any office in the
Government, or for a member of a Communist organization to conceal
his membership in seeking employment in any defense plant, and
made it unlawful for any employee in a defense plant to be a member
of a Communist organization. The Secretary of Defense designates
defense plants.
The Internal Security Act requires that Communist organizations
register with the Attorney General and that they give the names and
addresses of their members. Any organization registered as a Com-
munist organization must show on its publications that it is dissemi-
nated by a Communist organization.
The Internal Security Act creates a Subversive Activities Control
Board appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the
Senate. The Board may, upon application of the Attorney General,
determine whether any organization is a Communist organization.
Judicial review is provided after a hearing to the Circuit Court of
Appeals of the District of Columbia. Communist organizations are
divided into two types: Communist-action organizations and Com-
munist-front organizations. The former is defined as substantially
directed, controlled, or dominated by a foreign government, or a for-
eign organization, controlling the world Communist movement and
operated primarily to advance the objectives of the world Communist
movement. The Communist- front organization is one substantially
directed, dominated, or controlled by a Communist-action organiza-
tion primarily operated for the purpose of giving aid and support to
a Communist-action organization.
The act of October 16, 1918 (8 U. S. Code 137) was strengthened
by the Internal Security Act of 1950 and provided for the exclusion
of aliens seeking to enter the United States to engage in activities
prejudicial and dangerous to the United States, and for the exclusion
of aliens who are members of the Communist Party, or who advocate
the doctrine of world communism, or who are members of any organ-
ization which is registered, or required to be registered, under the In-
ternal Security Act, unless the alien can show that he did not know,
nor had reason to believe, tliat such organization was registered, or
required to be registered. It was also provided that no person may
be naturalized who is a member of a Communist organization.
The Emergency Detention Act of 1960 was also passed as a part
of tlte Internal Security Act of 1950. This act provides that the
President may in time of an internal security emergency cause the
apprehension and detention of persons as to whom there is reasonable
ground for belief that they probably would engage in espionage or
48 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
sabotage activity. This law provides for the issuance of a proclama-
tion by the President. Tlie President may issue a warrant for the
arrest of such a person, a preliminary hearing must be had before an
officer appointed by the President, with a full hearing before a Deten-
tion Review Board appointed by the President with a right to appeal
to the Federal courts. A proclamation can only be issued by the
President in the event of invasion of territory of the United States,
a declaration of war by Congress, or an insurrection in the United
States in aid of a foreign enemy.
Membership in the Communist Party is not illegal per se under any
Federal law. If a Communist organization or a Communist operates
in such a way as to come within the definitions and performs acts
which are outlawed, then it, or he, violates the law. If an organiza-
tion changes its characteristics, then the object of the law has been
accomplished. The most important thing in the combating of com-
munism is to keep the people informed accurately and fully and con-
tinuously about the activities, nature, and strategy of the Commu-
nist Party.
A petition of the Attorney General of the United States sought to
force the Communist Party to register under the Internal Security
Act of 1950. The Attorney General, in a verified petition, after
summing up the program of the Communist Party in the United States
and in the world, concluded that "in the event of a war between the
Soviet and any other nation, it is the recognized duty of all American
Communists to defend and support the Soviet Union." Another con-
clusion made in his petition :
In the event of war between the Soviet Union and the United States, the
Communists in the United States have obligated themselves to defeat the military
efforts of the United States and to aid and support the Soviet Union. The
Communist Party teaches its members that in such event they must act to foment
a civil war in the United States as a means for impairing the Nation's military
effort and for establishing a Soviet America, having a dictatorship of the prole-
tariat such as exists in the Soviet Union.
In the final conclusion in the petition, the Attorney General said :
To the leaders and members of the Communist Party, patriotism means soli-
darity with, and support of, the Soviet Union.
At this point I would like to insert in the record certain instructions
with which Judge Medina instructed the jury which considered the
case of the 11 Communist leaders in New York in 1949, who were
charged with violation of the Alien Registration Act of 1940 — instruc-
tions which further define and label the Communist conspiracy within
this country.
At the trial of 11 Communist leaders in 1949 in New York, charged
with the violation of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, Judge
Medina, in his instructions to the jury in October of that year, told
them that these defendants were charged with conspiring with each
other and others unknown to the grand jury to knowingly and wil-
fully advocate and teach the duty, or necessity, of overthrowing, or
destroying, the Government of the United States by force and vio-
lence ; and in this connection, to organize the Communist Party as a
society grou]), or assembly of persons who teach, or advocate, such
overthrow, or destruction."
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 49
The act under which they were indicted says :
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or willfully, advocate, or
teach, the duty, or necessity of overthrowing, or destroying, any government in
the United States by force, or violence ; to organize any society, group, or assem-
bly of persons who teach, or advocate, the overthrow, or destruction of any
government in the United States by force or violence.
Judge Medina told the jury :
It is perfectly lawful and proper for the defendants, or anyone else, to advocate
reforms and changes in the laws, which seem to them to be salutory and neces-
sary. No one has suggested that the defendants transgressed any laws by advo-
cating such reforms and changes. No syllable of the indictment refers to any
such matters. Furthermore, should you find from the evidence that the de-
fendants organized, or helped organize, and assumed, or were given leadership
in the Communist Party as a legitimate political party solely with the view of
electing candidates to political office by lawful and peacefiil means advocating
reforms and changes in the laws, or the adoption of policies by the Government
favorable to their contentions in the matters just referred to, you must render
a verdict of not guilty, and even if you do not so find from the evidence, you
cannot bring in a verdict of guilty against any defendant — unless the prosecu-
tion has satisfied you of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with
the instructions.
The Government introduced evidence that plans were deeply laid to
place energetic and militant members of the Communist Party in key
positions in various industries indispensable to the fuctioning of the
American economy, to be ready for action at a given signal, and such
action was to consist of strikes, sabotage, and violence of one sort or
another appropriate to the consummation of the desired end; that
is to say, the smashing of the machine of state, the destruction of the
Army, and the police force, and the overthrow of the Government and
what Communists call bourgeoisie democracy.
In the course of his instructions to the jury. Judge Medina said :
The prosecution further claims that the process of indoctrination at these
various schools and classes was sought to be accomplished by the defendants by :
(1) A persistent and unremitting playing upon the grievances of various minority
groups, such as young people, veterans, Negroes, housewives, Jews, and those
suffering from economic handicaps of one sort or another — rubbing salt into
these wounds and doing their best to arouse and inflame antagonisms between
various segments of the population; (2) by insistence that the Communist
Party alone is qualified to assume and to retain leadership of the revolutionary
movement for the smashing of the capitalist state machine, and the ushering in
of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that accordingly Communists must
at all times maintain what they call their vanguard role and the elimination at
all times of others who claim to be seeking by various means to attain the same,
or similar ends; (3) by constant study and discussion of the steps by which the
Communists came to power in the Soviet Union, including the details of the
revolution of October 1917, in Russia, the strategy and tactics followed, includ-
ing the wearing by the workers of uniforms of the Russian soldiers and sailors,
the street fighting and so on ; (4) by constantly stressing their claim that capi-
talism during the period of time specified in the indictment was on its last legs,
or moribund, that the dictatorship of the proletariat was inevitable, that the
workers should hate the capitalist system and their employers, and the Army
and the police as mere instruments of Wall .Street monopolists and exploiters,
who are said to hold the Government of the United States in their clutches; (5)
by picturing the Government at the United States as imperialistic and tending
toward fascism and the Soviet Union as the protector of the rights of minorities,
and the only true and complete democracy and as dedicated to peace; (6) by
indicating the doctrine that a war with Russia would be an imperialistic and an
unjust war, in which event it is said to be the duty of those subscribing to de-
fendants' principles to turn the imperialistic war into a civil war and fight
against their own Government, meaning the Government of the United States.
50 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The judge, in reviewing the defense, said :
The defendants asserted that they regarded the establishment of socialism in
this country as necessary if the people are to live in peace and prosperity, that all
their activities are directed toward the ultimate establishment of socialism, and
take two forms which interact with and influence each other, the political and
the educational.
The defendants asserted that they sought to form a Peoples' Front
Government, such as was elected in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
and Rumania, and that this would only come about if and when a ma-
jority of the people wanted it and were ready to struggle for it.
The judge was very careful to charge the jury :
Among the most vital and precious liberties which we Americans enjoy by-
virtue of our Constitution are freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
We must be careful to preserve these rights unimpaired in all their vigor. Thus,
it is that these defendants had the right to advocate, by peaceful and lawful
means, any and all changes in the laws and in the Constitution ; they had the
right to criticize the President and Congress ; they had the right to assert that
World War II, prior to the invasion of Russia by Germany, was an unjust war,
an imperialist war, and that upon such invasion it became a just war worthy
of all material and moral support; and they had the right to publicly express
these views orally or in writing. They had the right, thus, to assert that the
Government was at all times exploiting the poor and worthy workers for the
benefit of the trust and monopolies. They had a right, thus, to assert that
what they called the democracy of Russia is superior in all respects to Amer-
ican democracy. They had a right to assert that the Marshall plan was a mis-
take, that billions of dollars should be loaned to Russia and that legislation
adversely afCecting Communists should not be passed. Whether you, or I,
or anyone else, likes, or dislikes, such, or similar and analogous views, or agrees,
or disagrees, with them, is wholly immaterial and not entitled to the slightest
consideration in deciding this case. Unless a minority had a right to express
and to advocate its views, the democratic process as we understand it here
in America would cease to exist and those in power might remain there indefi-
nitely and make impossible any substantial changes in our social and economic
system, or in the texture of our fundamental law.
The Court told the jury :
You must be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendants had an intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of the United
States by force and violence, and that it was with this intent and for the purpose
of furthering that objective that they conspired both (1) to organize the Com-
munist Party of the United States as a group or society to teach and advocate
the overthrow or destruction of the United States by force and violence, and
(2) to teach and advocate the duty and necessity of overthrowing or destroying
the Government of the United States by force and violence.
With this background, I now come to S. 1254, which I have intro-
duced to eliminate Communists from positions of influence and control
in labor unions. This bill would enable the Subversive Activities
Control Board to prohibit any individual found to be a Communist
labor representative from functioning as a representative of em-
ployees, and would also enable the Board to prevent any labor organ-
ization found to be a Communist labor representative from function-
ing as a labor organization until it had removed from influence or
employment any officer or employee found by the Board to be a Com-
munist labor representative. This could only be done by proceedings
brought by the Attorney General before the Board. The Board is
enabled to appoint a labor panel of retired Federal judges. The de-
cision of the Board is appealable to a circuit court of appeals.
Why is such legislation required?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 51
The CIO in 1950 expelled 11 of its 41 international unions because
they were Communist dominated. The resolution on the expulsion
read :
We can no longer tolerate within the family of CIO the Communist Party
masquerading as a labor union. The time has come when the CIO must strip the
mask from these false leaders whose only purpose is to deceive and betray the
workers. So long as the agents of the Communist Party and the labor movement
enjoy the benefits of afliliation with the CIO, they will continue to carry out
this betrayal under the protection of the good name of the CIO.
I ask consent that that list of these 11 unions be inserted into the
record at this point.
(The names of those unions and the dates of their expulsion are:)
The United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, November 2, 1949
The United Farm Equipment Workers, November 2, 1949
Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, February 15, 1950
United Office and Professional Workers, February 15, 1950
United Public Workers, February 15, 1950
Food, Tobacco, and Agricultural Workers, February 15, 1950
American Communications Association, June 15, 1950
International Fur and Leather Workers Union, June 15, 1950
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, August 29, 1950
Marine Cooks and Stewards, August 29, 1950
International Fishermen and Allied Workers, August 29, 1950
Senator Butler. Senator, may I ask a question at that point ? Have
you ever talked to any officer of the CIO in connection with the expul-
sions, especially with reference to the material upon which they
formed the basis of the order of expulsion ?
Senator Goldwater. Senator, that was brought out at a hearing
before the Senate Labor Committee in the 1st session of this Congress,
and you will find in the record of those hearings several references to
the reasons why they were expelled.
I will say that there was nothing too definite. Tliis decision evi-
dently came about as the result of years of study on this subject and
years of public opinion on the subject.
Senator Butler. Has the CIO or any other officers or officials ever
made an offer or tender to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
of the United States on the material that they have in connection with
Communist infiltration of unions ?
Senator Goldwater. Not that I know of. I am not aware of any
such offerings having been made.
Senator Butler. Do you not think that that would be very helpful
if we could have that material ?
Senator Goldwater. I think it would be extremely helpful and I
might suggest that in the course of these hearings on both your bill
and mine we might consider subpenaing those officials of the CIO.
Senator Butler. I am leading up to that. Do you think that that
is the method or do you think that we should ask them to come in and
sit down and confer, with the hope that they would volunteer source of
that information, because to me it is a very valuable source of infor-
mation about Communist infiltration.
Senator Goldwater. Well, I should hope that they would volunteer
sucli information, but based on the attitude of their officials last year
when questioned on S. 1254, 1 doubt if they would. S. 1254 was con-
stantly referred to as a "thought control bill." Now, your bill would
receive the same label.
52 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Butlek. Do you happen to know that when the Senator
from Minnesota, Senator Humphrey, held hearings on Communist
activities in labor organizations that Mr. Carey, of the CIO, proposed
a method dealing with this subject of Communist infiltration of labor
organizations ?
Senator Goldwater. I was aware that some approach had been
made to that, but I am not familiar with his proposed method.
Senator Butler. I would like this record to contain the views of
Mr. Carey as expressed before the Humphrey committee, and I think
that he should come and be interrogated on those views by this com-
mittee. Do you agree with that ?
Senator Goldwater. I agree with that.
Senator Welker. The acting chairman would like to suggest that
a first approach would be to invite the officials of the CIO to submit
to the committee their evidence with respect to the reasons why the
expulsions were made, and in the event the invitation is rejected, that
this committee then issue a subpena duces tecum and bring in the
files and records on the subject matter.
Senator Goldwater. In 1939 the House Committee on Un-American
Activities listed the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers Union as a
Communist-dominated union. Ten years later the CIO acted upon
the findings of the House committee and expelled this union from its
membership (p. 6, October 1952 hearings. Senate Judiciary sub-
committee).
The CIO said as to the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers inter-
national leadership :
The testimony at the hearings, both oral and documentaiT, demonstrates con-
clusively to thife committee, and the committee finds that the policies and activ-
ities of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers are directed
tovpard the achievement of the program and the purposes of the Communist Party
rather than the objectives set forth in the CIO constitution. This conclusion is
Inescapable, both from an analysis of the policies adopted by Mine, Mill, and as
shown by documentary exhibits submitted by the imion, and by direct and uncon-
tradicted testimony by former oflficers of the union that the Communist Party
directs the affairs of the union.
At the hearing before the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary
Committee in October 1952, former officers of the Union adinitted
they had been members of the Communist Party and identified a
number of the officers of the present Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers
as having been members of the Communist Party.
The following officers and employees were subpenaed by the com-
mittee and refused to testify as to whether they were Communists or
not on the grounds that to testify would incriminate them.
Senator Welker. Senator, may I interrupt there. They refused
to testify on the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which really
means that they are not obligated to give testimony against themselves,
ratlier than to incriminate themselves. It is a technical matter of
which they will take advantage.
Senator Goldwater. I see. I said that on the grounds that to
testify would incriminate them.
Senator Welker. That is not correct as a matter of law. There
objection goes to the fact that no witness is obligated to give testimony
against himself. Am I correct, counsel ?
Mr. Arens. That is correct, sir.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 53
Senator Goldwater. I will take the correction.
Those persons were: Nathan Witt, general counsel; John Clark,
president; Clinton Jencks, international representative; Herman
Clott, Washington lobbyist for the union ; Orville Larson, vice presi-
dent; Holmgren, assistant editor of the union newspaper; Rudolph
Hansen, paid employee; Maurice Travis, secretary-treasurer of the
international union; Graham Dolan, who said he had no title but
worked on special assignments for President Clark, Vice President
Larson, Vice President Wilson, and Secretary-Treasurer Travis ; and
Albert Skinner, regional director and coordinator of the Kennecott
bargaining counsel.
I will not go into all the details of the hearing. They are available
in the report of the hearings issued by the United States Printing
Office.
I would like, at this time, to insert in the record a photostatic copy
of page 3 of the Union of August the 15, 1949, which contains the
statement of Maurice Travis, the international secretary and treasurer
of this union, on signing the Taft-Hartley law affidavit, in order that
his union could qualify under the Taft-Hartley Act.
Senator Welker. Senator Goldwater, may I interrupt ? Will you
identify the union for the purpose of the record ?
Senator Goldwater. Yes. It is the official publication of the Inter-
national Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers. It is entitled,
"The Union." This is a f)hotostatic copy of the issue of August 15,
1949.
Senator Welker. Without objection, it will be so entered.
(The document referred to, marked "Exhibit No. I." follows: )
Exhibit No. 1
[From the Union, August 15, 1949]
Travis Statement on Signing Taft-Hartley Law Affidavit
By Maurice Travis, International Secretary-Treasurer
The executive board of our international union has voted to comply with the
Taft-Hartley law. I support this decision.
As most of the membership knows, I have stated, more than once in the last 2
years, that if it became important to the life of our union to comply with Taft-
Hartley, I would support such a step. The reasons which have now made it vital
to our union to comply are the betrayal of labor's fight for repeal of the Taft-
Hartley Act by the controlling leadership of both the CIO and the AFL, by the
81st Congress and the Truman administration — a betrayal which now saddles
the labor movement with this law for another two years — and as part of that
betrayal, the adoption of raiding, gangsterism and strikebreaking as official policy
by reactionaries in the leadership of CIO.
Since the executive board meeting at which compliance was voted, I have de-
liberated very carefully on my course and I have also had the benefit of thorough
discussions with my fellow ofiicers, executive board members, and members of
the staff. The unanimous opinion of my fellow ofiicers and the others in the in-
ternational union is that the most effective way in which I can serve the inter-
national union is by continuing in my post as an ofiicer of the international union.
Since the interest of the international union is uppermost in my mind, I have
been confronted with the problem of resigning from the Communist Party, of
which I have been a member, in order to make it possil)le for me to sign the Taft-
Hartley afiidavit. I have decided, with the utmost reluctance and with a great
sense of indignation, to take such a step. My resignation has now taken place
and as a result, I have signed the afiidavit.
This has not been an easy step for me to take. Membership in the Communist
Party has always meant to me, as a member and officer of the international
54 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
union, that I could be a better trade unionist ; it has meant to me a call to greater
effort in behalf of the union as a solomn pledge to my fellow members that I
would fight for their interests above all other interests.
The very premise of the Taft-Hartley affidavits is a big lie, the same sort
of lie that misled the peoples of Germany, Italy, and Japan down the road to
fascism. It is a big lie to say that a Communist trade unionist owes any higher
loyalty than to his union. On the contrary trade luiions are an integral part of a
socialist society, the kind of society in which Communists believe. Therefore, I
believe that good Commimists are good trade unionists.
The biggest lie of all is to say that the Communist Party teaches or advocates
the overthrow of the Government by force and violence. If I had believed this
to be so I would not have joined the Communi^^t Party. If I had later found it
to be so I would never have remained in it. All the slanders by the corrupt press,
all the FBI stool pigeons, and all the persecution of Communist workers will not
make me believe it is so. I believe that when the majority of the American
people see clearly how rotten the foundation of the capitalist system is, they will
insist on their right to change it through democratic processes, and all of the
reactionary force and violence in the world will be unable to stop them.
It is because I believe these things that I have fought the affidavit requirement
of Taft-Hartley. I believe it is a blot on American life; I believe under our
bill of rights, for which our forefathers fought, that an American has as much
right to be a Communist as he has to be a Republican, a Democrat, a Jew, a
Catholic, or an Elk or a Mason. Free voluntary association is the very corner-
stone of the democratic way of life. I have been a Communist because I want
what all decent Americans want, a higher standard of living for all the people,
the ending of discrimination against Negroes, Mexican-Americans, and all other
minority groups. I want a peaceful America in a peaceful world. Despite my
resignation from the Communist Party, I will continue to fight for these goals
with all the energy and sincerity at my command.
I am also taking this step because I believe it is one effective means of bringing
home, not only to the membership of the international union but to the people
generally, the dastardly and unprecedented requirement that a man yield up his
political affiliations in order to make a Government service available to the people
he represents. This is a dangerously backward step in American political life
which threatens all of our democratic institutions. Americans have the right
to belong to the political party of their choice and trade union members have
the right to choose their own leaders. Denial of these principles undermines
democracy and gives comfort to the arrogant reactionaries who seek to put our
country on the road to fascism.
At the same time, I want to make it absolutely clear that my opinion continues
to be that only a fundamental change in the structure of our society, along the
lines implied in the very words of the charter of our international, "Labor produces
all wealth — wealth belongs to the producer thereof," can lead to the end of
insecurity, discrimination, depressions, and the danger of war.
I am convinced that capitalistic greed is responsible for war and its attendant
mass destruction and horror. I am convinced it is responsible for depression,
unemployment and the mass misery they generate. The present deepening de-
pression, growing unemployment, and threat of war confirm my conviction that
the only answer is socialism.
As a matter of fact, this Socialist concept has always been the guiding principle
for American workers. The struggle led by the great Eugene V. Debs, the early
fight for the S-hour workday, the steel and packing struggles led by Bill Foster,
the stormy history of the I WW were all influenced by socialist ideals.
As a member of our international union I have always been proud of and have
drawn strength from its basic Socialist tradition. No other union in this country
matches ours in its glorious working-class history. Our union, and its prede-
cessor, the Western Federation of Miners, has carried on some of the most bitter
and courageous struggles in the history of the labor movement. I have always
been inspired by the fact that early leaders of this union were socialistic in one
form or another, that Bill Haywood also took the road to communism and died not
only a great leader of the working class but as an honored and respected
Communist.
Therefore, I want to make it crystal clear that my belief in communism is
consistent with what I believe to be the best interests of the members of this
union and the American people generally and thnt I am especially hapny to be
able constantly to remember that it is consistent with the finest traditions of
the international union.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 55
I know that sooner or later we will turn this present shameful page in American
life, that the reactionary offensive will be beaten back and that the American
workers will again resume their march on the road to peace, progress, and
prosperity. Particularly do I know that the day will come when loyalty oaths
and affidavits will be a thing of the past, when the true test will again be service
to the people and, for trade-union leaders' service to their members.
In the meantime, I am sure that every member of the international union joins
me in my pledge to fight to keep this international union strong, to bend every
effort to make it even stronger, to continue to keep it on a progressive, militant
course, and to do everything in my power to make life in our country happy,
secure, prosperous and peaceful.
It's Official Now
President John Clark announced last week that he had been officially notified
in a letter from the National Labor Relations Board that Mine-Mill is in full
compliance with the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act and is now eligible to
use the processes of the Board.
The formal compliance notification followed the unanimous decision of Mine-
Mill's international executive board to meet the signing requirements of the
Taft-Hartley Act.
Officers Hail Tbavis' Stand
Statement by President John Clark, Vice President Reid Robinson, and Vice
President Orville Larson :
Pursuant to the resolution adopted at the last meeting of the international
executive board, the international union has now fulfilled the necessary steps
to effect compliance with the Taft-Hartley Act.
There is little to add to what has already been embodied in that resolution
except to reaffirm our determination to fight for the welfare of the international
union and to maintain this international union on its progressive and militant
course.
Let no one believe for a moment that compliance with Taft-Hartley means
that we intend to retreat from the basic policies we have pursued and advocated.
Recent developments have only served to emphasize the correctness of those
policies. The war danger is still with us. We mean to fight against it. The
danger of mass unemployment and a terrible depression hangs, like a cloud,
over the entire country. We mean to fight against this danger by advocating
policies which will give greater security to our members and to the mass of the
American people.
We also know that the usual propaganda will be unloosed against us in con-
nection with the signing of the affidavits. The action and the statement of
Brother Travis speak for themselves. We regret that this action is necessary,
but we commend him for his forthright and courageous stand, and we are happy
that the international union is thus assured of his continued leadership.
At the same time, we must again enter our most violent protest against a pro-
vision of the law which tells a man what political party he may or may not join
and which interferes with the freedom of union members to pick their own
leaders without the help of the Tafts and the Hartleys.
As far as the rest of us are concerned, we have been called Communists in
the past and expect to be called Communists in the future, despite the affidavits,
as long as we follow policies to which the reactionaries and Fascists are opposed.
We know that other Americans in recent history, like Franklin Roosevelt
and Frank Murphy, were also called Communists when they pursued progressive
policies, and that the CIO in its early days and its leaders were similarly de-
nounced. Such name-calling cannot alter the actual facts. Such name-calling
will not deter us in giving the kind of leadership which the rank and file of this
international union expects from us.
Senator Goldwater. Let me say here, that under the Taft-Hartley
Act, an employer, or the National Labor Relations Board cannot go
beyond the non-Communist affidavit filed by the union officials. If the
affidavits are filed, the employer must comply with the law and must
bargain with the union whether or not he thinks that the affidavits are
false and that the representative is still a Communist.
56 SUBVERSIVE mFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Let me call attention to what Mr. Travis says regarding Bill
Haywood :
I have always been inspired by the fact that early leaders of this union were
socialistic in one form or another, that Bill Haywood also took the road to
communism and died not only as a great leader of the working class but as an
honored and respected Communist.
Senator Welker. And Mr. Haywood was the gentleman who was
prosecuted in the State of Idaho for conspiracy with Moyer and Petti -
bone in the early years of the twentieth century to kill Governor
Speunenburg. I think that should go in to show that his activities
dated way back.
Senator Goldwater. I might add that Bill Haywood, as you will
remember, was head of the International Workers of the World dur-
ing World War I. In 1918 he was found guilty in a Federal court in
Chicago of espionage, sabotage, and interfering with the war effort of
World War I. Pending his appeal he jumped bail, fled to Kussia, and
now lies buried in the Kremlin as one of the heroes of communism.
His heroism consisted of treason to his countr3^
Senator Welker. Now, if we could go back to the statement I made
about Bill Haywod, I should say in fairness to Mr. Haywood that the
prosecution of the Haywood, Moyer, Pettibone case in the State of
Idaho for planning the killing of Governor Speunenburg, was repre-
sented by the late and great Senator William E. Borah. The defense
was represented by the great and late Clarence Darrow. Messrs.
Haywood, Moyer, and Pettibone were all acquitted of the charge.
We will proceed.
Senator Goldw^ater. Consider the case of Nathan Witt, general
counsel of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, and the brains of the
union, Lee Pressman, former general counsel of the CIO testified
before the Un-American Activities Committee in the House in 1950
and said that he and Witt both belonged to the Communist Party at
one time and that he. Pressman, John Abt, Charles Kramer, and Witt
worked in a cell together. Ware was the liaison with the Communist
Party of this cell and he collected their dues- Wliittaker Chambers
in 1948 testified that Ware, Abt, Witt, Pressman, Alger Hiss, Donald
Hiss, Henry H. Collins, Charles Kramer, and Victor Perlo belonged to
the Ware- Abt- Witt group.
Witt was former executive secretary of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board. In 1940 he wrote the United States Senate when the
NLRB was being investigated that he was not and had never been a
member of the Communist Party, a Communist sympathizer, or one
who used the Communist Party line.
At the hearing in 1952, Witt refused to testify as to wdiether he was
a Communist on the grounds that he was exercising his right under
the fifth amendment not to give testimony against himself. Nathan
Witt was also a member of the board of trustees of the Jefferson School
of Social Science, which the Saturday Evening Post of March 12, 1949,
said was the biggest school for the teaching of communism in New
York, and annually enrolled 3,000 students which was a fraction of
the total signed up b}' the national chain of Communist schools.
How does a union become Communist-dominated, and how did
these CIO unions become Communist-dominated? To begin with,
when the first attempts were made to orgjinize mass production in-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 57
diistry, there was an acute shortage of trained organizers. Unknow-
ingly, many Communists were used and they installed themselves
and their sympathizers in key positions in many of the new unions.
The newly organized workers, with no experience in unionism, were
no match for these skilled technicians. The result was that in union
after union the Communists controlled the top level tliough the mem-
bership was overwhelmingly American in its sympathies. In the
CIO findings on the expulsion of the Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers :
Both Wilson and Eckert made it perfectly clear to the committee that the
fact that this union followed the Commimist Party line was not accidental.
It was the result of the complete domination of the union's leadership by the
party. The party group within the union has a systematic working apparatus
for making its decision and for translating these decisions into union policy.
At the top, there was a party steering committee of four members. This com-
mittee, of which Eckert and Maurice Travis were members, determined Com-
munist policy within the union. They did this in consultation with the leaders
of the Communist Party. Meetings were frequently held with the Communist
Party leaders, such as William Z. Foster, chairman of the party ; Eugene Den-
nis, general secretary; John Williamson, its labor secretary; and Gil Green,
its lUinois director. In addition, there was a regular envoy of the Communist
Party, who was designated as liaison man between Mine, Mill and the party.
In meetings of this steering committee, which was sometimes enlarged to
include such persons as the union's research director and the editor of its
newspaper, the policies to be adopted by Mine, Mill were determined by these
Communist leaders. Their decisions were tlien brought to the so-called pro-
gressive caucus of the union, which contained all of the Communist and pro-
Communist leaders of the union ; all anti-Communist groups of the union were
excluded from this caucus. The Communist decisions were invariably adopted
by the caucus and were then brought before the official bodies of the union and
adopted as union policy.
This was the transmission belt by which the decision of the Communist
Party leaders became decisions of the International Union of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers.
The membership, of course, had a theoretical veto power, but the party's
control of the union's newspaper, control of its organization, and control of
its leadership enabled the Communist Party to conceal its dictation of union
policy and thus to maintain its power over the union's affairs. The right of
the union membership to control policy given lipservice by the leadership was
thus frustrated. The membership had no voice, for instance, in the decision of
Eeid Robinson to resign as president — a decision made by the Communist
Party for party reasons. He had no control over the appointment of Maurice
Travis, a newcomer to the union, as executive assistant to President Robinson,
an appointment dictated by the Communist Party for its own purposes. The
membership had no control over the appointment of organizers and, as a result,
approximately 90 percent of the union's staff are members of the Communist
Party.
Eckert, in testifying before the Senate committee in Salt Lake in
October 1952, said :
The Communist Party regarded MMSW as one of the key unions In America,
because of its strategic position in the nonferrous metal industry a"nd also
because they have locals in Alaska and close proximity to the Soviet Union.
That is an interesting note, because the MMSW locals up there, which are
completely dominated by the Communist Party, are only 40 miles from Soviet
Russia. Because of the importance they attach to MMSW, they made special
efforts to reactivate me in the Communist Party. I became active in the party
again from that time (1945) until the time I left MMSW, or just prior to
leaving MMSW in 1948.
Eckert testified before the subcommittee on this steering committee
in MMSW. Eckert said that the steering committe was composed
of Maurice Travis, Eckert, Al Skinner, and Charles Powers, and they
58 SUBVERSIVE ESTFLUENCE IX CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
received their instructions from Gil Green, State organizer of the
Communist Party in Illinois.
The steering committee, he said, would also meet with William Z.
Foster, national chairman of the Communist Party, Eugene Dennis,
and other top leaders to discuss matters affecting the Communist
Party. He testified that the following was the way the union adopted
its 10-point program in 1946 : It was first discussed by the steering
committee: it was then submitted to the enlarged party meeting held;
from this meeting it was taken to what was called the progressive
caucus inside the MMSW, which consisted of the party people on
the staff of the union and certain nonparty people who were on the
staff and other people who were not on the staff, but were in the
MMSW union.
He said the progressive caucus would then make these proposals
where it was necessary to have them approved by the international
executive board to the international executive board of the vmion,
which was almost evenly divided between the right and left wings.
Those decisions would then usually become the decisions of the union
and sometimes, as in the case of the 10-point program, submitted to the
convention, as was done in the instance of the Cleveland convention
in 1946, and became adopted by the convention as the official program
of the union. As he said :
It originated in the steering committee and passed down to this large party
meeting, then to the progressive caucus, the international executive board, and
finally adopted by the international convention. Irrespective of the various
channels through which it went, it started with the Communist Party and
crystallized as doctrine, or program, of the union as a whole. (Pp. 51-58.)
There were approximately 126,000 in the union then (1946). The
end result was the convention adopting a program which originated
with a small number of people who were Communist Party members,
wliich was later adopted as a program of over 120,000 members.
Eckert said that the party membership of the union never averaged
1 percent at any time and that a small number of Communists, even
4, a steering committee, could commit a union of 100,000 members to
a ])rogram which they, the 4 Communists, or a few more, originated.
(P. 59.)
Eckert said the Communist personnel did not seep very far down
because if it had it would be very much larger; here and there, there
might be a shop steward who might be a member of the party, or a
local union president, or a local member of the executive committee,
or shop committee, but, by and large, the control of the union by the
Communist Party was exercised from the top. (P. 59.)
Tlie Communist Party leadership was able to maintain itself in
control by the following procedure : A staff of the people who have
contacts with the membership would go out and campaign for their
particular candidate. They would get up at the meetings and speak
for them, and they were not above stuffing the ballot boxes where it
was necessary to do so. (P. 60.)
Ec]i:ert said he knew Mr. Nathan Witt was a member of the party
and had attended many party meetings with him. He was one of
the top party men and liaison man between the Communist Party
and various unions that were under the control of the Communist
Party, including the MMSW, and frequently was the person who
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 59
transmitted various things to MMSW, party decisions which were
to be put into effect inside the union.
The unfortunate and tragic thing is that most of the members
of the union are not aware of this Communist domination and are
loyal Americans. There is no law which now protects the rank
and file of a labor union from Communist domination of their inter-
national union.
I say that those men are entitled to the leadership of loyal Ameri-
cans. S. 1254 would provide a means to eliminate from a union
Communist leadership such as Travis and Witt, This bill would
permit local unions to bargain as bona fide labor unions and as a
part of a bona fide international union. Employers would no longer
be compelled by law to sit down with a Communist representative.
The union newspaper would no longer be a vehicle for Communist
propaganda to be dropping its indoctrinations drop by drop, issue
by issue.
I cannot conceive of a single reason, or justification, for the Gov-
ernment of the United States permitting men who are Communists
to head and to run a labor organization. I think loyal members of
the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, for example, are entitled to
their Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union free and clear of
Communist domination. Their strikes, if they strike, should not
be under any cloud that it is for political purposes and under a
leadership over which they have no control.
My bill would not destroy the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers —
it would protect them and preserve them.
The ease with which 4 or 5 men can control a large international
union makes me think that we should start an investigation into
the general subject of international unions to determine how demo-
cratic they are in the election of their officers. In many interna-
tional unions the same person has been president for many years.
The constitutions, conventions, systems, appointments of interna-
tional representatives, control over locals, have made it possible for
one man to perpetuate himself in office. The membership should
have control of the selection of the officers.
On Friday, April the 24th, 1953, Albert J. Fitzgerald, general
president of the United Electrical Kadio and Machine Workers of
America, told the Senate Labor Committee at its hearing that S. 1254
and its companion House bill H. R. 3993 was a "thought-control
piece of legislation." Because Senate bill 1606 will undoubtedly
receive the same charge from this and similar unions, I think it is
well to discuss that attack at this time. In the first place, the UE
dwells on the alleged fact that orders of the Subversive Activitie-s
Control Board will operate to destroy unions. Nowhere does he
advert to the fact that the membership of a union, which is the object
of such an order, will have the opportunity to purge itself of the
few individual leaders whose Communist activities give rise to the
order, and that they can, in that manner, preserve their union with
all its rights and privileges under the Federal laws.
Secondly, he quarrels with the various legislative standards and
definitions which the bill provides as guides to be used by the Board
in determining whether or not a union, or an individual union official,
is a Communist representative. Here he employs the well-worn shib-
boleths of thought-control and guilt by association. Mr. Fitzgerald's
60 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
remarks are to be found on -pnges 1995 to 2010, inclusive, of part 4 of
the hearinofs before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of
the United States Senate of the Sod Congress.
During the Senate hearings last year on labor, it became evident
to me that for any proper consideration of a bill such as Senator
Butler's bill or mine, we should include a study of what the unions
have in their constitutions today to protect themselves against Com-
munist infiltration and for that purpose my staff made this study.
For this study 89 national or international union constitutions cover-
ing a combined union membership of approximately 12 million were
examined. Forty-seven of these constitutions had provisions either
of a specific or a general nature which barred Communists from union
office or membership or both. It should be noted that a refusal to
accept Commimists as members can serve as an effective bar against
Communists holding union office since, as a rule, officers rise from
membership ranks. The combined membership of these 47 unions
was about 8.2 million or roughly two-thirds of the total membership
covered by the sample.
In the attached table, "Selected list of unions with constitutions
barring Communists from office or membership," a separate column
shows the date of the union constitution consulted in the study. A
number of the unions hold conventions at intervals of 2 vears or longer
and constitutions are generally dated to indicate only the initial year
in which provisions became operative.
The information, as found in the union constitutions, was classified
according to whether the constitution contained either (1) a specific
provision barring Communists, or (2) a more general provision de-
signed to eliminate undesirables from membership or office. Specific
provisions all had in common a mention of the word "Communist."
Illustrative of such types of clauses is the following:
No member shall be eligible to hold oflBce in this union or act in any ofBcial
capacity for this union or subordinate body thereof who shall be subject to
orders or discipline of any party or organization (such as the Communist Party,
Nazi or Fascist organization) which makes its interests and policies on union
matters binding upon its members irrespective of the decisions, interests, and
policies of the union.
Provisions of a more general character were those which apparently
could be construed as barring Communists although the word "Com-
munist" actually did not appear in the constitution. Virtually all the
union constitutions identified as having such clauses had provisions
somewhat similar to the following which appeared in one constitution :
No person shall be eligible either to membership or to retain membership in
this international or any local xmion affiliated with the international who shall
be a member of any organization having for its aim or purpose the overthrow,
by force of the Constitution and Government of the United States.
Two provisions in the general category differed substantially from
this type of clause : one was a requirement that officers be willing to
execute affidavits necessary to secure access to Government agencies;
another required officers to file statements as required by law indi-
cating acceptability under law as a qualified representative of the
union.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this study is in tabular form with some com-
ments, and I would like permission to insert it in the record at this
place and at this time.
Senator Welker. Without objection, so ordered.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 61
(The document referred to marked "Exhibit No. II," follows:)
Exhibit No. II
Selected list of unions tcith constitutions barring Communists from offlce or
memhersMp *
Name of national or international union
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
National Agricultural Workers Union
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America
Bakery and Confectionory Workers' International Union of America_
Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists, and Proprietors
Inteniational Union of America
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and
Helpers of America
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers -•
Building Service Employees' International Union
International Chemical Workers Union
International Association of Cleaning and Dye House Workers
Coopers' International Union of North America
Flight Engineers' International Association
American Federation of Grain Millers
United Hatters, Cap, and Millinery Workers International Union
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union.
International Jewelry Workers' Union
International Longshoremen's Association
International Association of Machinists
National Organization Masters, Mates, and Pilots of America
American Federation of Musicians
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America
International Photo-Engravers' Union of North America
Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express, and Station Employes
Retail Clerks International Association
United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof
Workers Association
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America
Date
of
consti-
tution
General
Specific provision
provision which may
barring be construed
Communists as barring
from — Communists
from—
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America
International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers
United Gas, Coke, and Chemical Workers of America
Federation of Glass, Ceramic, and Silica Sand Workers of America
National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America
United Optical and Instrument Workers of America
American Radio Association
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America
United Steolworkers of America
Transport Workers Union of America
Utility Workers Union of America
International Woodworkers of America
INDEPENDENT OR UNAFFILIATED UNIONS
Engineers, Architects, and Scientists, National Professional Associa-
tion-
National Federation of Federal Employees
International Union of Life Insurance Agents
LTnited Mine Workers of America
The Society of Tool and Die Craftsmen
Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New England, Inc-
National Union, United Welders of America
1950
1947
1951
1949
1949
1949
1948
1950
1950
1950
1949
1951
1950
1950
1949
1950
1947
1949
1948
1950
1951
1950
1950
1947
1947
1949
1950
1951
1950
1950
1950
1950
1951
1949
1949
1950
1950
1950
1950
1950
1948
1950
1950
1948
1949
1950
1950
Mem-
ber-
ship
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OflSce
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mem
ber-
ship
X
X
X
"x"
X
x"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Offlce
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 The omission of a union from this list does not necessarily mean that its constitution does not include
provisions barring Communists.
43903—54 5
62 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Union Teial Pkocedures Wheke Communism Is an Issue
The constitutions of the following unions covered trial procedures where
communism may be an issue. These 10 unions were selected arbitrarily for
illustrative purposes.
1. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America (AFL).
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Imi)le-
ment Workers of America (CIO).
3. International Association of fU-idge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Work-
ers (AFL).
4. Building Service Employees' International Union (AFL).
5. International Chemical Workers Union (AFL).
f>. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union (AFL) .
7. International Association of Machinists (AFL).
8. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Woi-kers of America (CIO).
9. Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New England, Inc. (Independent).
10. International Woodworkers of America (CIO).
Generally the trial procedures were listed under sections of the constitution
dealing with disciplinary matters. Usually, the procedures were not exclusively
designed to handle charges of communism but could be utilized in any one of a
numlier of specified violations of union constitutional provisions.
The procedure followed by the International Union, United Automobile. Air-
craft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), may be of par-
ticular interest in view of the special attention paid to this problem at the UAW-
CIO's March 1953 convention. The 1951 constitution of the union (art. 10. sec.
8) provided that members were ineligible to hold elective or appointive office in
any UAW local union or in the international union if they were "a member of or
subservient to any political organization, such as the Communist, Fascist, or
Nazi organization." A detailed trial procedure (art. 48) by a local union trial
committee (for charges involving the Communist issue as well as a number of
others) provided in part that local trial committee verdicts of guilty could be
reversed by a two-thirds vote of the local union membership. However, verdicts
of acquittal were held as final and could not be reversed by the membership.
At the 1953 convention this trial procedure was changed. Amendments were
passed to UAW's constitution which provide that local union trial decisions of
acquittal involving charges of communism (or other totalitarian leanings) could
be reviewed by the international union executive board upon an appeal by any
member of the local union or the ITAW regional director. The international
board could then order a retrial if it found that the verdict appeared to be con-
trary to the evidence. The intent of this amendment, as stated by a UAW spokes-
man, was to provide review of decisions "which may have been arrived at
fraudulently or in a manner not consistent with this kind of a democratic
organization."
The experiences which UAW had in dealing with Communist influence in its
large Ford local. 600 were in large part responsible for these amendments. In
his 1953 report to the convention, UAW president Walter P. Reuther described
how the international union intervened in local 600 to prevent five members from
holding office who had been accused of subservience to Communist doctrine but
who had been acquitted by a local union trial committee. President Reuther
pointed out that the international union was able to act under certain "emer-
gency" provisions. However, he recommended more adequate machinery "to
deal with the few Communists in our ranks who, while attempting to take advan-
tage of the democratic privileges to weaken and destroy both our union and the
free institutions of our country."
The trial procedure followed in one of the lai-gest AFL affiliates, the Inter-
national Association of Machinists, is outlined in the union's constitution effec-
tive April 1, 1949 as amended and effective April 1, 1950.
ARTICLE K
Code: Charges
Section 1. It is the duty of any member who has information of the violation
of any provisions of the constitution of the Grand Lodge or the constitution of
local lodges, iiy any member or members, to immediately prefer charges in writing
against any such member or members by filing same with the jiresident of the
local lodge to which the accused member or members belong, who shall supply
a copy of the same to the member against whom the charges are preferred and
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 63
turn over the oiij;inal charges to the committee provided for by the following
section. (In the event tlie president, or the president and other officers of the
lodge ai"e involved in the charges filed, the next ranking officer shall proceed as
herein set forth. In the application of this section the order of rank of officers
shall be president, vice president, and past president. In the event the presi-
dent, vice president, and past president are involved in the charges, or are absent,
the i-ecording secretary shall call for nominations of a temporary chairman and
the members present shall immediately proceed to select a temporary chairman
by majority vote. The temporary chairman selected shall then proceed to carry
out the requirements of this section.)
Appointment of trial committee
"Sec. 2. Wlienever charges have been preferred against a member of a local
lodge the president of such lodge shall immediately appoint a committee to
investigate the charges, take testimony, and decide upon the guilt or innocence
of the one accused. The committee so appointed shall within 1 week thereafter
notify the member against whom the charges liave been preferred as to the
time and place, when and where, to appear for trial. (In the event the presi-
dent, or the president and other officers of the lodge are involved in the charges
filed, the next ranking officer shall proceed as herein set forth. In the applica-
tion of this section the order of rank of officers shall be president, vice in-esident,
and past president. In the event the president, vice president, and past presi-
dent are involved in the charges, or are absent, the recording secretary shall
call for nominations of a temporary chairman and the members pi'esent shall
immediately proceed to select a temporary chairman by ma.iority vote. The
temporary chairman selected shall then proceed to carry out the requirements
of this section.)
Evidence
'"Sec. 3. The accused shall have the privilege, either in person or by attorney
(the attorney being a member of the local lodge) to cross-examine all witnesses
appearing for the prosecution and present all such evidence as he may deem
proper in his own behalf. The committee shall consider all of the evidence in
the case and thereafter agree upon its verdict of guilty or not guilty. If the
verdict be that of guilty, the committee shall then consider and agree upon its
recommendation of punislimeut.
Appeai'ance
"Sec. 4. If a member of a local lodge fails to appear for trial when notified
so to do, the trial shall proceed as though he were in fact present.
Trial procedure
"Sec. 5.
"1. Call trial committee to order.
"2. Examine due books.
"3. Clear the trial chamber of all people except the trial committee, the trial
reporter (who need not be a member of the International Association of IMachin-
ists), the plaintiff and his attorney, the defendant and his attorney, and a repre-
sentative of the grand lodge, if in attendance.
"4. Segregate the plaintiff and the defendant.
"5. The plaintiff and the defendant shall remain in the trial chamber until
trial is concluded.
"6. Tlie chairman shall read the charges and ask the defendant if he is 'guilty'
or 'not guilty.' If the plea is 'not guilty' the trial shall then proceed.
"7. The plaintiff or his attorney shall present his case first.
"8. Witnesses shall be called into the trial chamber one at a time, and will
leave the trial chamber upon completing their testimony, subject to recall by
either the trial committee, the plaintiff, the defendant, or the representative
of the grand lodge.
"0. Plaintiff's witnesses shall be called first.
"10. Defendant and his attorney shall have the right to cross-examine plain-
tiff's witnesses.
"11. Defendant's witnesses shall then be called.
"12. Plaintiff' and his attorney shall have the right to cross-examine the de-
fendant's witnesses.
"13. Before the trial committee shall begin their deliberations upim the testi-
mony given, all persons except the trial committee shall leave the trial chamber.
64 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Report of trial committee
"Sec. G. The trial committee shall report at the uext regular meeting of the
local lodge. Such report shall be iu two parts as follows :
"First : The report shall contain the findings and verdict of the trial committee
together with a synopsis of the evidence and testimony presented by both sides.
"After the trial committee has made necessary explanation of its intent and
meaning, the trial committee's verdict with respect to guilt or innocence of the
•defendant shall be submitted without debate to a vote by secret ballot of the
members of the local lodge.
"Second : If the lodge concurs with a 'guilty' verdict of the trial committee,
the recommendation of the committee as to the penalty to be imposed shall be
submitted in a separate report to the lodge and voted on by secret ballot of the
mpmbers then in attendance.
Voting on report
"Sec. 7. The recommendation of the committee may be amended, rejected, or
another punishment substituted therefor, by a majority vote of those voting
on the question, excepting that it shall require a two-thirds (%) vote of those
voting to expel the defendant from membership.
"If the lodge reverses a 'not guilty' verdict of the trial committee, the punish-
ment to be imposed shall be decided by the lodge by a majority vote of those
voting on the question, except tlnit it shall require a two-thirds (%) vote of
those voting to expel the defendant from membership.
Limit of fines
"Sec. S. No fine shall be imposed upon any member or applicant eligible to
membership in this association in excess of $50.00 unless the same is first
approved by the executive council.
Ajipeals
"Sec. 9. Appeals may be taken from the decision of any local lodge or Grand
Lodge officer to the international president: Provided, lunvcver, that such ap-
peals must be taken within 30 days after the decision. Thereafter appeals may
be prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of sec. 6, article XXV of the
Grand Lodge Constitution.
Rights of members and lodges during appeal
"Sec. 10. While any member or local lodge is exercising the right of appeal
the financial standing of such member or local lodge shall not be impaired by
refusal to accept dues or per capita tax until after the executive council has
passed upon the appeaL Should any member or local lodge decide to appeal
from the decision of the executive council they must comply with the provisions
of sec. 6, article XXV of the Grand Lodge Constitution. No individual mem-
ber or local lodge shall appeal to the civil courts for redress until after having
exhausted all rights of appeal under the provisions of this constitution and
the constitution of the Grand Lodge."
Senator Butler. May I ask the Senator whether after a review of
those provisions he feels that they are in his opinion effective for the
purpose ?
Senator Goldwater. I would say that they are not 100 percent
effective . I do not believe that all of the unions have reviewed their
constitutions to strengthen the clauses that would prevent Com-
munists from attaining positions of power in the union.
Senator Butler. Good strides have been made in tliat direction?
Senator Goldwater. We cannot condemn in any of this discussion
the union movement as a whole in the country, because we are only
talking now about ten and one-half unions. I say ten and one-half
because the CIO is beginning to make inroads into the International
Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers. I do think that the study
will be of value to the committee and will be of value to the unions
themselves to show where their constitutions are weak and where they
might reinforce them to strengthen them in this regard.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 65
In view of all these studies that we have made on the dangers of
Communist-controlled unions to this country, both in times of peace
and in times of war, I prepared a bill and introduced it. This bill
carries the Xo. S. 1254.
Briefly stated, what this bill proposes to do is to subject labor or-
ganizations to the general techniques of the McCarran Internal Secu-
rity Act. The latter statute creates a Subversive Activities Control
Board, which has the duty of passing upon the subversive character
of various political organizations and societies. The proposed bill
would authorize the Attorney General, after investigation, to bring
any labor organization which he believed to be Communist-influenced
before the Board and present evidence of its character before the
Board. A labor organization aggrieved by the findings of the Board
is given the same right of review in the circuit court of appeals which
is given to litigants before the National Labor Relations Board.
If an adverse finding is made against a labor organization and the
labor organization fails within 30 days to purge itself by expelling
its Communist officers, the labor organization loses whatever rights and
privileges it has under Federal and common law.
Thus all its collective-bargaining agreements become void; it no
longer is entitled to exclusive recognition as the representative of
employees ; it does not have the right to initiate or participate in any
Labor Board proceedings; and the immunity which labor unions en-
joyed from injunctions under section 20 of the Clayton Act and sec-
tions 1 and 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act is taken away from it.
After my bill was introduced. Senator Butler introduced his legis-
lation and it is known as S. 1606. The purpose of my testimony at
this time will be directed toward what we feel are the deficiencies of
S. 1606. I want you to keep in mind that I am not criticizing Senator
Butler's bill. I um trying to point out where these 2 bills might be
merged to present 1 bill that would be workable and constitutional.
Senator Butler. Senator, I think that that is a very admirable
idea, and I pledge you the fullest cooperation in that effort. Certainly,
on the record, if there is any doubt of the constitutionality of my bill,
I will not push it because I would not push any unconstitutional
legislation.
Senator Welker. We will proceed.
Senator Goldwater. The purpose of both S. 1606 and S. 1254 is to
provide a means whereby communism in labor unions can be elimi-
nated as a threat to the national security and to the national economic
structure. It is fairly well agreed that the non-Communist affidavit
provision of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, which was
intended to accomplish that objective, has been ineffectual. The prin-
cipal reasons for its ineffectiveness are the following :
(a) A Communist has no moral compunction against signing a false
affidavit.
(h) Communist influence over labor organizations is by no means
limited to that exerted by the union officers who are required to sign
affidavits.
(c) The affidavit requirement affects only a union an officer of which
is a member of the Communist Party on the day he signs the affidavit.
(d) There is no administrative machinery whereby the validity
of the affidavits can be determined.
66 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
(e) Mere disqualification from availing itself of the proceedings
provided for in the National Labor Relations Act is not a sufficient
deterrent to compel a labor miion to rid itself of Communist influence.
The two bills in question are intended to operate as an effective sub-
stitute for the present non- Communist affidavit requirement by empow-
ering an independent governmental agency to make an administrative
determination of the existence of Communist influence in a particular
labor union and to provide effects of such a determination which will
result in the elimination of that influence.
Any legislation of this sort will, of course, meet with considerable
opposition. That opposition will be directed initially toward the
prevention of its enactment by Congress and thereafter toward ren-
dering it invalid by court decision.
Accordingly, any bill which is to overcome this opposition and which
is to accomplish the purpose for which it is designed must be analyzed
in the light of the following factors :
(a) Its ostensible and latent fairness.
(b) The extent to which it apprises the administrative agency, the
courts, the parties to the proceedings and the general public of the
considerations which Congress believes essential to a determination of
the existence of Communist influence.
(<?) Its capability of accomplishing the objective.
(d) Its constitutionality.
The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate wlierein S. 1606 is
deficient when analyzed in the light of these factors and to point out,
where such is the case, the absence of such deficiencies in S. 1254. It is
not intended as a detailed analysis of either bill and the discussion
will be confined to the more important features of the legislation.
COMMENCEME:NrT OF PROCEEDINGS
Under S. 1606 proceedings could be instituted against a labor union
by anyone who saw fit to file a charge against it. This is obviously
both unfair and unnecessary. Such a provision would be subject to
valid and strenuous objections that it would permit unlimited harass-
ment of unions by employers, by rival unions, and by disgruntled
individuals.
It might result in the Subversive Activities Control Boai'd's being
so deluged by variously motivated charges as to render it inca]>able
of carrying out the provisions of the law and in giving tlie law itself
the appearance of being ridiculous and picayune.
Communist influence in labor unions is a matter of such national
concern as to require constant investigation by the Department of
Justice. If that investigation reveals the necessity for instituting
proceedings under legislation of this sort, such proceedings should be
instituted by the Attorney General. Furthermore, the charge of its
being Comnnmist influenced is of such obvious concern to a union
that it is entitled to have such a charge made against it only on the
basis of a verified petition.
Apparently none of these factors was taken into consideration in
the preparation of S. 1606. It calls for no part to be played by the
Department of Justice or by the Attorney General. It calls for no
prechnrge investigation. It permits anyone to file a charge. It does
not require verification of the charge.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 67
S. 1254, on the other hand, covers all of these points. Under S.
1254 only the Attorney General can institute proceedings against a
union, and he can do so only on the basis of a verified petition. And
the bill would require hhn to file a petition if he has reason to believe
that a union is Communist influenced. Presumably this latter require-
ment presupposes the duty to investigate, but it would be preferable
to place in any legislation on this subject a provision specifically
requiring the Attorney General to investigate comnuniism in labor
unions.
In this connection another objection to S. 1606 lies in the provision
that, after the filing of a charge and a determination by the Subversive
Activities Control Board that the charge is meritorious, the Board
itself would issue a complaint against the charged labor union. This,
of course, is not an unusual provision, but it does permit the customary
attack that the Board w^ould be playing the role of both prosecutor
and judge. Under S. 1254 the Board would serve only in the capacity
of judge.
EFFECT OF A COMPLAINT
S. 1606 provides that if the Board issues a complaint against a labor
union that union is immediately rendered ineligible for the benefits
and procedures of the National Labor Kelations Act. This is a very
unfair provision. The effect on a union of such temporary ineligibility
pending a hearing and ultmiate determination by the Board could
be extremely drastic, and yet it would be predicated solely on the filing
of a charge by somebody and an ex parte investigation by the Board
prior to issuance of the complaint.
The union w^ould be given no opportunity to answer the charge or
the complaint before it became ineligible. It is not unlikely that
such a procedure would be found by the courts to be lacking in the
essentails of due process of law and that, at least to the extent of this
prehearing ineligibility, the legislation would be declared unconsti-
tutional. (See Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Goimnittee v. McGrath.
341 U. S. 123, 95 L. ed. 817.)
Under S. 1254 a labor union against which a complaint had been
issued would be given its full day in court before any action of the
Board would affect it.
HEARING PROCEDURE
S. 1606, no doubt in the interest of brevity, prescribes the procedure
to be followed by the Board in conducting a hearing merely by refer-
ence to certain sections of the Internal Security Act of 1950. Under
normal circumstances there would be no objection to this method of
prescribing procedure, and there certainly is no constitutional objec-
tion to it, but since proposed legislation of this type will be attacked
on ihQ emotional grounds of persecution, witch hunting, fascism,
thought control, star chamber and similar rousing epithets, it would
seem desirable to spell out in the bill itself, where everyone can see
them, substantially all of the details of the hearing procedure.
In this way the usual safeguards, such as the rights to representa-
tion by counsel, the right to a public hearing, the right to cross-ex-
amine witnesses, the right to offer oral and documentary evidence,
the right to have subpenas issued, and the availability of an official
68 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
transcript, would be readily apparent to all concerned, S. 1254 does
set out the hearing procedure and the safeguards in detail.
CONGRESSIONAL GUIDES
Again, presumably in the interest of brevity, S. 1606 fails, except by
reference to sections of the Internal Security Act of 1950, to spell out
the matters which Congi^ess believes should be considered by the
Board in making a determination of Communist influence in a labor
organization. Since this legislation deals with a specific subject,
namely, communism in labor unions, and since it presumably will be
attacked by arguments particularly applicable to that specific subject,
it seems highly desirable that any bill on the subject should be a com-
pletely integrated and all-inclusive measure which by its own text sup-
23lies the answers to objections which may be raised against it.
S. 1254 does spell out in detail the matters to be considered by the
Board and in doing so takes into account the particular problem of
communism in labor unions which it is designed to elminate, rather
than relying solely, as S. 1606 does, on the considerations which were
embodied in the Internal Security Act of 1950.
OPPORTUNITY FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION BY UNION
Under S. 1606 the penalty against a union for being Communist-
dominated is to deny to it access to the benefits and procedures of the
National Labor Relations Act. That penalty becomes operative on
a temporary basis immediately upon the issuance of a complaint.
It becomes operative permanently upon the issuance of a final deter-
mination by the Board, or until that determination is ultimately set
aside by the courts. In other words, the only way a union can rid
Itself of the penalty imposed by S. 1606 is to upset the Board's de-
termination after an appeal to the courts. This would give an af-
fected union no alternative to appealing from an adverse determina-
tion by the Board.
Once that adverse determination had been made by the Board there
would be no incentive for a union to clean house and to rid itself of
Communist leaders, because such action would not relieve the union of
the permanent disqualification provided for in S. 1606. It is obvious,
therefore, that this permanent disqualification feature of S. 1606 not
only defeats the purpose for which the legislation is intended but
would result in endless litigation as the only means of survival.
This is not true of S. 1254. Under that bill the Board, having made
a determination that a union was Communist influenced, would afford
that union an opportunity of purging itself of that influence and
thereby avoiding the effects of the adverse determination.
Thus, a union found to be Communist-influenced would have the
alternatives of cleaning house or of appealing to the courts. In the
face of clear and convincing evidence supporting the Board's deter-
mination, which would make a favorable outcome on appeal an
obvious impossibility, a union which wished to survive would of neces-
sity choose the house-cleaning alternative. Lacking this feature,
S. 1606 is open to the attack that it is designed to bring about the
permanent destruction of unions.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 69
EFFECTIVE DATE OF BOARd's DETERMINATION IN RELATION TO RIGHT OF
APPEAL
As pointed, out above, under S. 1606 a union would suffer the penal-
ties imposed innnediately upon the issuance of a complaint against
it. It would have no right of appeal at that time. Following a hear-
ing and an adverse determination by the Board it would have its first
opportunity to appeal, but the penalties of the law would remain
operative against it until the Board's determination was ultimately
set aside by the courts.
There is probabl}- no valid constitutional objection to this latter
feature, namely, the operation of posthearing penalties pending the
outcome of judicial review, but here again the bill is open to attack
on the grounds that it is designed to bring about the destruction of
unions by the o])eration of penalties during the lengthy period of time
Avhich proceedings for judicial review necessarily involve, S. 1254 is
also deficient in this respect and open to the same attack.
In both cases the situation is unjustified, because there is a likeli-
hood that a union could circumvent this feature anyway by applying
for an injunction against the Board pending a judicial determination
of the constitutionality of the law. In fact, until such a determination
has been made and the constitutionality of the law has been sustained
by the courts, this feature of both bills would compel all unions
threatened with Board proceedings to take that course of action. If
one recognizes the propensity of Communists to employ obstructionist
tactics, it is foolhardy to afford them unnecessary obstructions.
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
S. 1606 would give the reviewing court broader authority to set
aside determinations of the Board than is generally given by statutes
authorizing judicial review of administrative decisions. Under S.
1606 the findings of the Board would be conclusive, that is, not sus-
ceptible to being set aside by the reviewing court, only if those find-
ings were supported '"by a preponderance of the evidence." In other
words, if the reviewing court were of the opinion that the weight of
the evidence was not in favor of the findings of the Board, it could set
those findings aside.
This would mean that in every case the reviewing court would
determine independently which way the evidence preponderated, and,
in effect, no value would be given to the adjudication of facts by
experts or specialists in the field of Communist activities. This scope
of review would be so broad as to afford little or no justification for
having the matter decided by an administrative agency in the first
instance. Since the Board would be serving merely as a medium for
transmitting the evidence to the reviewing court, the jurisdiction to
make the initial adjudication might just as well be given to the court
and the administrative procedure eliminated entirely.
This feature of S. 1606 represents the opposite extreme of the
Wagner Act wherein the findings of the National Labor Relations
Board were conclusive on the reviewing court "if supported by evi-
dence." The Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, adopted a po-
sition midway between these extremes by making the findings of the
70 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
NLRB conclusive "if supported by substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole." That same text is embodied in S. 1254.
PENALTIES
The major deficiency in S. 1606 is the lack of penalties adequate
to encourage a union to rid itself of Communists. Under S. 1606
an adverse determination by the Board would have only one effect
on a union. It would become "ineligible to act as exclusive bargain-
ing agent or to become, or to continue to be, the recipient of any pro-
cedural or substantive benefit under or by virtue of the Labor-Man-
agement of 1947, as amended." This is no more and no less than
the penalty currently imposed on a union which does not file the re-
quired non-Communist affidavits.
The prime example of the inadequacy of such a penalty is the
United Mine Workers. For more than 6 years that uuion has ignored
the non-Communist affidavit requirement of the Taft-Hartley Act and
thereby rendered itself ineligible to file unfair labor practice charges
against employers or to participate in representation elections. And
yet that union has continued to flourish, has held a club over the na-
tional economy and the Federal Government, and has suffered no
ill effects from its self-imposed ineligibility.
The same could be true of any of the powerful unions which are
notoriously Communist-dominated and which occupy strategic posi-
tions in our national economy and in our national defense effort.
If legislation of this sort is to have the salutary effect which both
S. 1606 and S. 1254 seek to encourage, it must have teeth in it.
Under S. 1606 a union found to be Communist-dominated would
still have the protection of the anti-injunction features of the Norris-
LaGuardia Act and of the exemption from the antitrust laws. Like-
wise its collective-bargaining agreements, including provisions in them
for compulsory unionism and the checkoff of union dues, would con-
tinue to be in full force and effect. These weapons and governmental
protections are ample to permit the continuation of Communist lead-
ership in a union, regardless of the ineligibility which would con-
stitute the sole penalty under S. 1606.
S. 1254 is far more realistic in this respect and would have far
greater possibilities, if enacted, of accomplishing its objective. Under
S. 1254 a union found by the Board to be Communist-influenced would
not only be ineligible under the National Labor Relations Act but
also would automatically be denied the protections of the ISTorris-
LaGuardia Act and the Clayton Act, and, in addition, its collective-
bargaining agreements would be rendered null and void. These
would be real deterrents and real incentives to self-house cleaning.
CONCLUSION
S. 1606 has a laudable and essential purpose, but as integrated
legislation to accomplish its objective in a highly controversial field
it is considerably deficient. It is first and foremost deficient in the
penalties which it would impose; they are unrealistic and would pro-
duce little in the way of results.
Its other principal deficiency lies in the fact that its shortcut ap-
proach makes it subject to attack on the grounds of unfairness, am-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 71
biguity, and unconstitutionality. With respect to its brevity, other-
wise praiseworthy, it sliould be noted that the past 20 years have pro-
duced a great increase in the number of regulatory laws enacted by
Congress and, concomitantly, in the volume of judicial interpretation
of their provisions. There has been enough experience along this line
to indicate that the enactment will succeed best in its purpose which
spells out in considerable detail its substantive and procedural
requirements.
From this standpoint alone S. 1254 is preferable to S. 1606 because
S. 1254 makes the necessary effort to go into detail and to contemplate
the various situations which may arise. Such an effort will avoid both
the fate of un workability at the hands of a confused or disgusted court,
and the fate of emasculation at the hands of a hostile court.
1 would like permission to liave inserted in the record a copy of
S. 1254.
Senator Welker. Without objection, so ordered.
(The document referred to, exliibit No. HI, is inserted on p. 137.)
Senator Goldwater. Since the introduction of my bill, S. 1254, last
year, I have caused a study to be made of the bill for the purpose of
making changes which might serve to improve the legislation, and,
further, to bring it in line with recent court decisions on the subject.
The most substantial change is to focus on "Conmiunist-influenced
labor organization" to the exclusion of individuals therein. This has
the advantage for constitutional purposes of directing the enforcement
aspects at collective and group activities rather than the individuals.
At the same time, little of the efficacy of S. 1254 is sacrificed, since
one definition of a "Communist-influenced labor organization" is an
organization which allows its policy to be influencecl by one found to
be a "Commimist labor oflicial." This shift in emphasis has neces-
sitated (1) changes in terminology, (2) changes in the definition of
Communist influence, and (3) changes in procedure.
I therefore should like to submit for the record a schedule of sug-
gested changes in S. 1254, and a memorandum in support of these
suggested changes.
Senator Welker. Without objection, so oidered.
(The document referred to, marked "Exhibit No. IV," is as fol-
lows:)
Exhibit No. IV
Memorandum in Support of Suggested Changes in S. 1254
I. general tenor of suggested changes
The most substantial change suggested in the approach of S. 1254 is to focus
on "Communist-influenced labor organization" to the exclusion of individuals
therein. This has the advantage for constitutional purpose of directing the
enforcement aspects at collective and group activities rather than the indi-
viduals. At the same time, however, little of the efficacy of S. 1254 is sacri-
ficed, since one detlnition of a "Communist-influenced labor organization" is an
organization which allows its policy to be influenced by one found to be a
"Communist labor official." Tins shift in emphasis has necessitated (1) changes
in terminology, (2) changes in the definition of Communist influence, and (3)
changes in procedure.
(1) Terminology. — The term "Communist labor representative" has been
eliminated, and in its place the terms "Communist-influenced labor organiza-
tion" and "Communist labor oflacial" have been substituted. This split is de-
sirable because the two are no longer dealt with in the same way, and therefore
72 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
there need be no common description referring to both individuals and organiza-
tions. Eitlier the organization or the individual, but not botli, could still be
referred to as a "Communist labor representative,'" but in the interest of avoid-
ing confusion with the original bill, it has been thought best to use the new
terminology for both organizations and individuals.
(2) Definitions. — The definitions have been changed in a way which shifts
the emphasis of the original draft without losing its effectiveness. A labor
organization can be found to be Communist influenced only if there is found to
be danger of its acting in a particular manner — engaging in political strikes or
other inimical collective activity — or if it is found to be influenced by a Com-
munist lal)or oflScial. A "Communist labor ofiicial" is in turn defined in terms
of acting, advocating, or soliciting, rather than merely speaking or believing.
These changes are made with a view to the problems under the first amend-
ment to the United States Constitution raised by the bill. The nearest Supreme
Court case in point is the recent one of American Vommvnications Akso. v.
Douds (339 U. S. 382, 94 L. Ed. 925). Two parts of the non-Communist-oath
provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act were Ijefore the Court. Five of the six par-
ticipating Justices voted to sustain tlie constitutionality of that part of the non-
Communist-oatti provision which required disclosure of afiiliatiou with the
Communist Party. The provision of the oath which required disclosure of
belief in the forceful overthrow of the Government was afiirmed by an equally
divided Court ; Justices Jackson, Frankfurter, and Black voting against the
validity of this provision. Justice Jackson's opinion was based on the piemise
that the first amendment forbade imposition of a penalty for one's belief alone.
Justice Frankfurter's dissent was based solely on the vagueness of the provision ;
but subsequent expressions of his indicate he might well have sided with Jack-
son and Black on the belief point. See, e. g.. Garner v. Board of PuMic Works
of Los Angeles (341 U. S. 716, 724, 94 L. Ed. 1317. 1325) ; Wiemann v. Undegraff
(344 U. S. 183) ; United States v. Rumelu (345 U. S. 41).
As to the three members of the Court not participating in the Douds decision,
the later case of Osman v. Douds (339 U. S. 846, 94 L. Ed. 1328), indicates that
Justice Minton would vote to sustain both provisions, whereas Justice Douglaa
would vote to invalidate the section dealing with belief. Justice Clark, though
he participated in either of these cases, v\-ould probably vote to sustain both
provisions. Thus the full Court, prior to the death of Chief Justice Vinson,
would have sustained a measure based on disclosure of belief without action
by a 5-4 vote. The recent change in Chief Justices makes the issue sufficiently
doubtful to require as much circumspection as possible in draftinu- a provision
of this nature.
The suggested changes remove all question of belief per se from the sections
defining Communist-influenced organizations, but in order not to deprive the
Board of the power to consider beliefs as evidence of tendencies to act, such
consideration is specifically allowed in section 5. This is actually no more than
the spelling out of normal canons of relevancy, and it requires a Board finding
of actual tendency to act before such individuals can be found to l)e Communist
labor officials. This two-part procedure should meet some of the usual shib-
boleths about "guilt by association" and "freedom of belief" because it would
make belief and association relevant in determiug an individual's propensities
to act — as they surely are in any system guided by commonsense — but at the
same time they would not be conclusive of the question as they are in the present
bill. The practical ramifications so far as penalizing Comnuniist-iu^uenced
unions are not significant; a properly oriented Board will be able to bring as
many Connnunist-influenced unions to book under the changed sections as under
the present bill ; but for constitutional purposes the changes are significant and
helpful.
(3) Procedure. — Under the suggested changes, individuals, as such, would not
be involved in pi-oceedings before the Board. Its sole power would be to make
a finding that a particular organization is a "Commuuist-inl^uenced labor organ-
ization." This would make the changed bill in some respects less coercive than
the present bill, which latter allows the Board to issue detailed orders requiring
an organization to rid itself of certain oflicials. A court might well balk atJ
this provision, whereas it would permit the same result to be accomplished by;
less direct methods. The very simple and superficially innocuous procedure of
giving the Board only the power to say that a union is Communist influenced
would actually accomplish all that the more obnoxious procedure does, since a
finding against the union could be based on the fact that its policy is influenced
by communistically inclined individuals. The union wnnld know, without being
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 73
directed by the Board, that it must rid itself of tbese objectionable persons in
order to get its status redetermined. The suKS'ested procedure is practically as
sweepin.n' an enforcement device as is provided in the present bill, since a mere
finding:' of Communist influence would cut off the union from all the prerogatives
that failure to comply with specific orders of the Board does under the present
bill.
II. DETAILED BEASONS FOR CHANGES
Folh)wing is a more detailed analysis of individual changes. Wherever the
change is necessitated solely by the above-mentioned shift in operation of the
bill from both organizations and individuals to only organizations, the Roman
numeral I appears after the suggested change. Where the change is indicated
in whole or in part by considerations other than this change in focus, such
considerations are set forth.
2 : 5-6—1.
2 : 15-lU— I.
3 : 2 — This change is suggested in order that no labor organization against
which a declaration of Communist intlueuce is outstanding can avoid the effect
of such declaration by any merger or reorganization.
3 : 23-5 : 19 — These charges carry out the approach described in I above. The
definition of "Communist influenced labor organization" is phrased in terms of
actions or tendencies to act. Likewise, the definitions of "Communist labor
official" and "political strike" emphasize action.
5 : 20—1.
5 : 20-21—1.
6 : 1 — The adjective "any" is necessary here because the change in 5 : 20-21
deletes the prior mentioned "individual."
6 : 2—1.
6:5 — The adjective "certain" is susceptible of an undesirably restrictive
Interpretation.
6 : 7—1.
6 : y— I.
6 : 10-11— I.
6 : 20-23—1.
6 : 25—1.
7 : 5-6—1.
7 : 8 — The phrase "present evidence" is substituted for the phrase "give testi-
mony" in order to broaden this provision and insure the right to present docu-
mentary as well as oral evidence.
7 : it — This change is necessary in order to be consistent with the sentence
beginning on 6 : 24, providing for notice of hearing.
7 : 11— See 7 : 8.
7 : 22-8 : 2 — The provision allowing subdelegation has been deleted because of
its dubious constitutional implications. The question of subdelegation has never
been squarely passed on by the Supreme Coiu't, but at least would furnish an
added ground of attack on the bill (Cf. Morgan v. Umtecl States, 298 U. S. 468,
SOL. ed. 1288).
8 : 17-11 : 10 — Here the provisions of section 3 and section 5 of the present
bill, both relating to the disabilities resulting from a Board order, have been
consolidated under one heading. As explained in I, above, it has been thought
best to confine the Board to a simple declaration from which the disabilities
follow automatically. There is no need in a bill the purposes of which are
those of this bill to give the Board discretionary power to frame its orders in
a manner such as it believes would effectuate the policy of the bill. Likewise,
the penalties are confined strictly to deprivation of privileges otherwise granted
to labor organizations by Congress. This is thought desirable because of the
opinion of Chief Justice Vinson in Douds where he stresses the fact that the
non-Communist oath provision of the Taft-Hartley Act imposes no criminal
penalties, but merely denies resort to privileges conferred by Congress.
The requirement that the Board's order have become final before it is opera-
tive is inserted in the interest of fairness to the organizations and of following
established procedures. The more general practice is to deny efficacy to the
orders of the agency until a court has ordered them enforced ; see e. g.. Federal
Trade Commission, 15 U. S. C. 45 (c) ; National Labor Relations Board, 29
U. S. C. IGO (e) ; Federal Communiications Commission (senible), 47 U. S. C. 401,
402 : Subversive Activities Control Board, 50 U. S. C. 793 (b) ; on the other hand,
74 SUBVERSWE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
orders of the Securities Exchange Commission (15 U. S. C. 771 (b)) and of the
Federal Power Commission (16 U. S. C. 825) are effective immediately, subject
to the discretionary power of the agency or of the reviewing court to grant
temporary stays. A declaration by the Board under this bill could well sound
the death knell for a union ; even if the order were effective only for a few
months it could seriously cripple the union. Such a result should obtain only
after the union has had a chance to challenge the Board's order in the reviewing
court.
In (i) the termination of all collective-bargaining agreements is spelled out
in detail in order that there mav be no mistake about the reti'oactive application
of the bill.
In (ili) the language is made specifically applicable to a petition filed with the
NLRB "thereafter or theretofore." This is to obviate the result reached by the
Supreme Court in N. L. R. B. v. Dant, 344 U. S.
The provisions of (v) have been thought necessary because of tlie unwilling-
ness of some of the courts of appeals to liar the NLRB from processing a com-
plaint brought ostensibly by individuals, even though it was fairly clear that
such individuals were "fronts" for a noncomplying union. See e. g.. 'N. L. R. B.
V. Augusta Chemical Co. (5th Cir.), 187 F. 2d (>3, 04; N. L. R. B. v. Clausen (3d
Cir.), 1.S8 F. 2d 439; Contra, N. L. R. B. v. Alsirle, Inc. (6th Cir.), 102 F. 2d. 678.
In (e) the Board is required to issue a declaration where it concludes that
an organization is not Communist influenced. It is elemental fairness to give
a conclusion favorable to an organization the same publicity as is given an ad-
verse conclusion.
In (f) it bas been thought desirable to put a moratorium of 1 year on the
union's right to reopen a proceeding. This will make an adverse decision by the
Board which is in turn sustained by the courts a more serious blow to a labor
organization than if such organization could immediately reopen the proceeding.
Therefore, the unions coming up for adjudication before the Board might well
feel that prudence was the better part of valor and clean house on their own.
In so doing, they might well rid themselves of officials who could not constitu-
tionally be reached by any law.
11 : 11-13 : 4 — The detailed provisions in section 4 of the present bill are prob-
ably su])erfluou3. A short statement of the desired result will save verbiage
and at the same time prevent the courts from saying that by detailing the corners
which may be cut in an emergency. Congress has in elTect forbidden the Board
to cut any other corners. A short expression such as is suggested here will
prevent this application of the rule of expressio unius, exclusio alterius.
13 : 4-15 : 3 — Section 5 is now incorporated in section 3.
15 : 3-18 : 1 — These changes have been partially explained in I above.
"The Board shall consider" has been substituted for "the Board may con-
sider" in order to make the provi.sion mandatory. Congre.ss should do more
than permit the Board to consider such highly relevant factors ; it should require
the Board to consider them.
The detailed language regarding affiliation in (i) should give the provision as
sweeping an effect as possible, and avoid any repetition of the problem presented
to the Supreme Court in NLRB v. HighUunl Park Mfg. Co. (341 U. S. 322, 95
L. ed. 969). This same language is repeated in each of the subsections.
The provisions of 6 (b) (5) have been added because of their obvious relevancy
and usefulness as a source of information. The provisions of 6 (b) (6) are
added because such information also may be relevant. Certainly where an
individual can be compelled to take the .stand, as he can here, this not being a
criminal proceeding, his refusal to answer on grounds of self-incrimination can
be upheld only if a relevant answer would incriminate him. His refusal to an-
swer is in effect an affirmation that the truthful, relevant answer he would
give would be at least a "link in the chain" of evidence tending to incriminate
him. The Board can use this line of analysis to support its finding against
unwilling individuals and thus dispense with the necessity for immunity con-
tained in the present bill. The refusal to answer on gromids of self-incrimi-
nation has long been held admissible in a civil proceeding, and a fair subject
of comment even in a criminal proceeding. See Adanuon v. Calif wnia (3.32
U. S. 46, 60, 91 L. ed. 1903, 1913) and cases cited.
18 : 1-4 — Since this bill merely gives an added function to the Board, there
is no reason to think that the provisions of the Internal Security Act would not
apply to the Board in carrying out this function even without the specific enum-
eration of those provisions in this bill.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 75
18 : 5 — "Its" is substituted for "sucti," since in view of the change in 18 : 1-4,
there is no longer any antecedent to which "such" relates; the same elfect is
obtained bv inserting the word "hereunder" after "functions."
18 : 13— i.
IS : 15—1.
18 : 16-18—1.
19 : 1-2 — This change is necessary to achieve consistency with similar refer-
ences in other parts of the bill.
20 : 6-14 — Though this provision appears in the Internal Security Act, neither
the reason nor the necessity for it is at all clear. Unless such reason or necessity
is made apparent to the committee, there is no point in putting in such a vague
and all-inclusive provision.
20 : 15-21 : 4— See comment under 15 : 3-18 : 1, 6 (b) (6) .
21 : 4—1.
21 : 13—1.
21 : 16-17 — Since the only action taken by the Board will be a finding of fact, it
is desirable to call it a declaration rather than an order.
21 : 17—1.
21 : IS— I.
21 : 18 — An emphatic statement of finality and immunity to collateral attack
is more appropriate in this section than elsewhere.
21 : 20 — This provision has been broadened to encompass an individual who
appears on behalf of an organization but is neither a party nor a counsel.
21 : 21— See 21 : 20.
' 21 : 23-23 : 8 — The procedure for judicial review has been revised in order to
more clearly designate the ciix'uit court in which review may be sought. It is a
more standard practice to require the person aggrieved to actually seek the
review than the agency, and certainly such a practice imposes no great hardship
on the person aggrieved. Specific reference to the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia has been omitted, since that court is already burdened
with a great deal of review of agency action ; and unless a labor organization
were actively engaged in representing employees in the District of Columbia,
the Court of Appeals for the District should not be called upon to review the
action of the Board under this bill. The provision relating to judicial review
has been shortened because much of the language in the present bill appears
unnecessary.
23 : 23 — The power of the court on review to modify an order of the Board has
been deleted. This is because it is now contemplated the Board will issue only
a finding of fact to the eftect that an organization is or is not Communist
influenced. Thus there would be no purpose to be served by allowing a court of
appeals to modify such a declaration.
24 : 19—1.
24 : 21-24—1.
25 : 2—1.
25 : 6—1.
25 : 11— I.
25 : 12-26 : 19 — For constitutional purposes as suggested in section I above,
it is desirable to eliminate all of the criminal penalties contained in this bill
since they give no added eflicacy.
26: 19-26: 23 — No reason is apparent for this provision and, therefore, it is
deleted.
26 : 23-27 : 2 — The existing non-Communist-oath provisions of the Taft-Hartley
Act should not be repealed until it is certain that this substitute bill will stand
up in court.
27 : 14 I.
27 : 14-15 — The bill in its present form would give the Board power to order
an election upon the mere commencement of proceedings by the Attorney Gen-
eral. This in effect passes judgment on the organization before it has had a
hearing.
Suggested Changes in S. 1254
2 : 5-6 ^ — Delete "and persons functioning as Communist labor representatives."
2 : 15-16 — Delete "Communist labor representative" and substitute "such labor
organization."
I Number preceding colon refers to page (number), of S. 1254 ; numbers following colon
refer to lines.
76 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
3 : 2 — Add, after "as amended", the following : "The term "labor organization'
shall include any successor organization ereate<l or utilized in whole or in part
for the purpose of evading any provision of this Act."
3 : 23-5 : 19 — Delete all of section 2, subsection 5, beginning on this line, and
substitute the following:
"(5) A 'Communist-influenced labor organization' is one which (a) is likely
to engage in or to solicit others to engage in (i) political strikes as herein de-
fined or (ii) any other concerted activity one of the purposes of which is to
aid the world Communist movement or (b) allows its policy to be directed or in
any substantial degree influenced by one who is a Communist labor official, as
herein defined, whether or not such Communist labor official is an officer or
member of the union.
"(6) A 'Communist labor official' is one who is in any substantial degree in-
fluential in formulating or executing any part of the policies of a labor organi-
zation, whether or not he is a member of such labor organization, and who
advocate or counsel that such labor organization engage in the practices set forth
in subsection .5 of this section.
"(7) A 'political strike' is any concerted work stoppage, one of the purposes
of which is to aid the world Communist movement."
5 : 20 — After "any," insert "Communist influenced."
5 : 20-21 — After "organization", delete "or individual found to be a Communist
labor representative."
6 : 1 — Before "individual", insert "any."
6: 2— Delete "or individual."
6: 5 — Delete "certain."
6: 7 — Delete "or individual."
6 : 9 — Delete "labor representative"' and substitute "influenced labor organiza-
tion."
6 : 10-11 — Delete "the persons named therein whom he alleges are Communist
labor representatives" and substitute "such labor organization."
6 : 20-23 — Delete remainder of paragraph, starting "and any or all."
6:25 — Delete "persons" and substitute "organizations."
7 : 5-6 — Delete "organization and the persons" and substitute "organizations."
7 : 8 — Delete "in person or otherwise and give testimony" and substitute "and
present evidence."
7: 9 — Delete "complaint" and substitiite "notice of hearing."
7: 11 — Delete "testimony" and substitute "evidence."
7 : 22-8 : 2 — Delete sentence beginning "in appointing."
8 : 17-11 : 10 — Delete from sentence beginning "If, upon the preponderance" to
the beginning of section 4 on page 11, and substitute the following :
"(d) If, upon the preponderance of the evidence, the Board finds that any labor
organization named in the petition is a Comuiunist-influenced labor organization,
it shall issue a declaration to that effect and serve copies of such declaration on
such organization, on the National Labor Relations Board, and on the Attorney
General. When any such declaration becomes final, it shall have the following
effects :
"(i) All collective-bargaining agreements to which such labor organization is
a party shall be deemed to have terminated by operation of law and shall be
of no further force or effect whatsoever.
"(ii) No employer shall be obligated to recognize or bargain with such labor
organization as a representative of any of his employees.
"(iii) The National Labor Relations Board shall have no jurisdiction to
entertain or process any charge or petition filed thereafter or theretofore by
such labor organization unuer the provisions of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, or to permit such labor organization to intervene or participate
in any proceedings, including representation elections, under such Act.
"(iv) The limitations on the .iurisidiction of the courts in labor dispute cases
prescribed by section 20 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 738) and sections 1 and 7
of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (47 Stat. 70, 71) shall not apply to labor disputes
to which such labor organization is a party.
"(v) Any proceeding brought by an individual before the National Labor
Relations Board or any court, which, if l)rought by the labor organization with
which such individual was affiliated at the time his alleged cause of action arose,
would be affected by subparagraphs i-iv of this subsection, shall be affected to
a like extent by this section if such labor organization would derive any advan-
tage from such individual's successful prosecution of such proceeding, whether
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 77
or not such individual would also derive any advantage from tlie successful
prosecution of such proceeding.
"(e) If the Board shall find that any labor organization named in a petition
is not Communist influenced, it shall issue a declaration to that effect and serve
copies of such declaration on such organization, on the National Labor Relations
Board, and on the Attorney General.
"(f) Not less than one year after a declaration of the Board has become
final, the labor organization adversely affected by such declaration may file
with the Board a verified petition for a redetermination of the existence of
Communist influence in such labor organizations. Copies of the petition shall
be served on the Attorney General, who shall be a party to the proceeding. If
on the basis of the facts set forth in the petition there is reason to believe that
Communist influence in such labor organization no longer exists, the Board
shall hold further hearings to consider evidence of events which have occurred
since the issuance of the declaration. No evidence shall be received which
was received at prior hearings to which this organization was a party. If,
upon the preponderance of all of the evidence received at all of the hearings
to which such labor organization was a party, the Board finds that such labor
organization is no longer a Communist-influenced labor organization, it shall
issue an order rescinding its previous declaration and serve copies of such order
on the labor organization, on the National Labor Relations Board, and on the
Attorney General. Not more than one petition for redetermination involving a
particular labor organization shall be filed within any one-year period."
11 : 11-13 : 4 — Delete all of section 4 and substitute the following :
"Sec. 4. When, upon allegations contained in the petition of the Attorney
General there is reason to believe that the national security would be injured
by an interruption in the production or delivery of goods of any employer whose
employees a labor organization named in the petition represents or claims to
represent, the Board shall take all steps to expedite the proceeding consistent
with appropriate recognition of the rights of the parties under the circum-
stances."
13 : 4-15 : 3— Delete all of section 5.
15 : 3-18 : 1— Delete all of section 6 and substitute the following :
"Sec. 6. (a) In determining whether a labor organization is Communist influ-
enced, the Board sliall consider, among other things :
"(i) Whether it or any international, national, regional, or local labor or-
ganization with which it is afliliated or of which it is a constituent part, or which
is afliliated with it has at any time engaged in or aided an organization engaged
in a political strike.
"(ii) Whether it or any international, national, regional, or local labor or-
ganization with which it is affiliated or of which it is a constituent part, or which
is afliliated with it. has accepted financial or other support from a Communist-
action organization. Communist-front organization. Communist foreign govern-
ment, or the world Communist movement.
" ( iii ) Whether its funds, resources, or personnel, or those of any international,
national, regional, or local labor organization with which it is afliliated or of
which it is a constituent part, or which is atfiliated with it have been used to
promote by word or deed the military, economic, or political iwlicies of any Com-
munist-action organization. Communist-front organization, Communist foreign
government, or the world Communist movement.
"(iv) The extent to which its declared positions on public questions, or those
of any international, national, regional, or local labor organization with which
it is afliliated, or of which it is a constituent part, or which is afliliated with it
have not deviated from those of Communist-action organizations. Communist-
front organizations, Communist foreign governments, or the world Communist
movement.
"(v) The extent to which its members are or ever have been members of any
Communist-action organization. Communist-front organization. Communist for-
eign government, or the world Communist movement.
"(1)) In determining whether any person is a Communist labor oflieial, for the
purpose of in turn determining whether a labor organization is Communist in-
fluenced, the Board may consider, among other matters :
"(1) Whether he has aided by funds or services any Communist-action organi-
zation. Communist-front organization, Comnninist foreign government, or the
world Communist movement.
43903—54— — 6
78 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
"(2) "Whether he has been employed by any Communist-action organization.
Communist-front organization, Communist foreign government, or the world
Communist movement.
" (3) Whether he is or ever has been a member of any Communist-action organ-
ization. Communist-front organization, Communist foreign government, or the
world Communist movement.
"(4) The extent to which his utterances and activities, both public and private,
have not deviated from those of Communist-action organizations, Communist-
front organizations, Communist foreign governments, or the world Communist
movement.
"(5) Findings of Federal and State agencies and legislative committees
involving his loyalty.
"(6) His refusal to answer any question upon grounds of self-incrimination."
IS : 1-4 — Delete sentence beginning "In the performance.''
18:5 — Delete "such" and substitute "its"; after "functions" insert "here-
under."
18: 13 — Delete "(1)" and draw remainder together with line 12.
18: 15— Delete "and."
18 : 16-18 — Delete all of these three lines.
19 : 1-2 — Delete "examiner or agent" and substitute "agent or agency."
20: 6-14 — Delete sentence beginning "No person shall be held."
20: 15-21 : 4— Delete subsection "(b)."
21:4— Delete "(c)" and substitute "(b)."
21 : 13— Delete "an" and substitute "a labor" ; delete "or individual."
21 : 16-17 — Delete "enter an order finding" and substitute "issue its declaration
that."
21 : 17 — Delete "or individual to be" and substitute "is."
21 : 18 — Delete "labor representative" and substitute "influenced labor organ-
ization."
21 : 18 — Before "Where" insert "A declaration issued under this subsection
shall become final upon its issuance, and shall be subject neither to review nor
collateral attack in any judicial proceeding whatever."
21 : 21 — Delete "party or counsel" and substitute "representative or counsel."
21 : 23-23 : 8— Delete from "Any party" in 21 : 23 to "It" in 23 : 8, and substi-
tute:
"Any party aggineved by any declaration issued or order entered by the
Board pursuant to .section 3 hereof may obtain a review of such order in the
United States court of appeals for a circuit in which the labor organization
involved is actively engaged in representing employees by filing in such court,
within 60 days of service upon it of such declaration or order, a written petition
praying that the order of the Board be set aside. A copy of such petition shall
thereupon be served upon the Board and upon other parties to the action, and
the aggrieved party shall file in the court a transcript of the entire record in the
proceeding, certified by the Board."
23 : 23 — Delete the remainder of subsection starting "Tlie jurisdiction of the
court" and insert :
"(b) The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm or set aside the order of the
Board. Petitions filed under this subsection shall be heard expeditiously. The
judgment and decree of the court shall be final and its jurisdiction exclusive,
except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court on certi-
orari."
24 : 18 — Insert before "order" "declaraton or."
24 : 19— Delete "or .section 4."
24 : 21-24 — Delete all of subsection following "filing" and sul)stitute "a peti-
tion for review, if no such petition has been duly filed in an appropriate United
States Court of Appeals ;".
25: 2 — Insert before "order" "declaration or."
25 : 6 — Insert before "order" "declaration or."
25:11^ — Insert before "order" "declaration or."
25 : 12-26 : 19— Delete all of section 11.
26 : 19-26 : 23— Delete all of section 12.
26 : 23-27 : 2— Delete all of section 13.
27 : 14— Delete "or individual."
27 : 14-15 — Delete "proceeding under this act has been commenced by the
Attorney General" and substitute "declai*ation of the Board has become final."
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 79
Senator Butler. I want to say for the record that I want any bill
that comes out of this committee to be known as the Butler-Goldwater
bill.
Senator Goldwater. During the course of the hearings before the
Senate Labor Committee last year, I attempted to bring out discus-
sion on S. 1254 and also H. R. 3993 which is a companion bill in-
troduced by Representative John J. Rhodes of Arizona. The gist of
these discussions boils down to the fact that it was "thought control"
and that will be the big argument that the unions will use against this
legislation if any of the unions feel inclined to object to legislation
that would assist them in ridding themselves of Communists.
I have made a study of this contention and, to conserve time, I ask
permission to have inserted in the record at this point an analysis of
the contention that S. 1254 and H. R. 3993 constitute thought-control
legislation.
Senator Walker. Without objection, it will be so ordered.
(Document referred to, marked "Exhibit No. V," follows:)
An Analysis of the Contention That S. 1254 and H. R. 3993 Constitute
ThoL'Ght-Control Legislation
i. intkoduction
S. 1254, introduced by Senator Goldwater, and H. R. 3993, introduced by
Congressman Rhodes, are identical in text. They would require the Subversive
Activities Control Board, an independent governmental agency, to determine,
upon a charge initiated by the Attorney General, whether or not a labor union is
influenced or controlled by Communists and by what individuals such influence
or control is exerted. If the Board sustained the charge made by the Attorney
General, it would issue an order directing the union to rid itself of such com-
munistic influence or control within a specified period of time. Failing to com-
ply with such order and until compliance, the union would be denied the rights
and privileges of a labor organization under the National Labor Relations Act,
the antiinjunction protection of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the antitrust exemp-
tion of the Clayton Act, and the right, under the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947, to enforce its collective bargaining agreements with employers by
actions in the Federal courts.
The bills prescribe legislative standards to aid the Board in determining the
existence of communistic influence or control. Public hearings are required on
all charges filed by the Attorney General, and the right of court review is af-
forded to both unions and individuals affected by Board orders. Criminal pen-
alties are imposed only upon unions and individuals who continue to act as
labor representatives after the orders of the Board affecting them have been
reviewed and affirmed by the courts.
II. BASES OF THE THOUGHT-CONTKOL CONTENTION
It has been contended by some tliat legislation of this sort constitutes thought
control. This contention must be based on one or the other of the following :
1. An attempt to distort the purpose of the proposed legislation by branding it
as antilabor and applying to it a catch-phrase, or epithet, which will generate
public condemnation ; or
2. A sincere belief that by enacting such legislation Congress would be un-
constitutionally abridging the freedom of speech vouchsafed by the first amend-
ment.
For those who advance the thought-control contention as a red herring and
who seek thereby to divert Congress from the conscientious reexamination of
a real national problem, no answer to the contention is required. Suflice it to
say that every legislative effort to protect this country against internal sub-
versive activities has been faced with the same contention.
But for those who, although they recognize the gravity of the problem, never-
theless advance the thought-control contention in the sincere belief that this type
of legislation goes beyond the constitutional powers of Congress, a sincere and
80 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
forthright answer is required. They uuist have an answer to their fear that,
in seeking- by this means to combat a recognized evil, we would be destroying the
very thing we are purporting to protect; in other words, their fear that by
suppressing freedom of thought and association in this way, we would be ajv
proaching the very totalitarianism which the Communists are seeking to establish
by such means as the control and domination of trade unions. The purpose of
this analysis is to supply that answer.
III. THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
The term "thought control," even when used by those who are sincerely per-
turlied by the aspect of this type of legislation, is misleading. Communism is
fundamentally an idea or belief, but its significance today lies not so much in
the idea itself but in the plan of action designed to implement that idea, the
plan of affirmative and violent action to establish and enforce that idea in the
form of world dictatorship by the ruling power of one nation. A person may
have the intent to rob or to murder, but, absent any action on his part to im-
plement that intent, our concept of liberty would not permit us to restrain him
just for having such evil thoughts. The same is true of a person who is only
a Communist in the philosophical sense. When, however, the robber, or the
murderer, or the Communist, reaches the point of affirmatively implementing his
intent to employ force or violence to gain his end, he has reached the action stage
where his intentional conduct, not his thoughts, becomes the legitimate object of
social scrutiny and possible limitation.
It is with this concept of modern communism in mind that the fundamental
issue presented by this legislation must be defined. The determination to be
made is whether or not, under present circumstances and with respect to com-
munism, the necessity for preserving law and order and our national sovereignty
justifies an abridgement of a fundamental liberty, and whether or not such
abridgement is within the constitutional powers of Congress. Specifically, the
issue is whether or not communistic infiltration of trade unions constitutes a
thi'eat to national security sufficient to justify restraining the liberty to foster
communism through union power, and whether or not the exercise of that liberty
can be constitutionally restrained in the manner proposed by this legislation.
As so defined, it is obvious that the issue cannot be properly characterized as
a thought-control issue.
IV. THE ESTABLISHED FACTS
The portion of this issue which requires a determination of the extent of the
threat to our national security in relation to an impairment of individual liberty
must be resolved on the basis of facts. These facts are well established and
cannot be validly disputed. They have been established by hearings conducted
by congressional committees, reports of congressional committees, legislative
findings by Congress, verdicts of Federal juries, and decisions of the Federal
courts. Tliese are the established facts :
1. There exists a world Communist movement whicli is a worldwide revolu-
tionary effort designed to establish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in the
countries throughout the world.
2. One of the traditional and primary means of accomplishing this purpose is
Communist infiltration of labor unions.
3. The goal of the American Communist party is the overthrow of the Govern-
ment of the United States by force and violence.
5. The American Comnmnist Party has infiltrated and dominates and controls
certain labor unions in this country.
6. The goal and the activities of the American Communist Pai-ty constitutes a
clear and present danger to the Nation.
V. NATIONAL NECESSITY V. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
In the face of the.se established facts Congress must decide whether or not
the infringement on individual liberty embodied in the proposed legislation is
justified. The specific liberty involved is the liberty to participate in and
encourage Connuunist action in the trade-union movement — l)y speech, l)y asso-
ciation, and by international conduct. Tlie objective of that Conmninist" action
is the overthrow of our Government by force and violence, a clear and present
danger to our national security. The mere statement of the liberty involved
and of the ultimate result of its unlimited exercise provides the answer for all
SUBVERSIVE IN^FLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 81
loyal Americans. Congress, with the support of the people, has answered the
question before in analoc;ous situations by imposing more drastic restraints on
that liberty. Federal legislation applicable to Communists and organizations is
nothing new. In 1938, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, also known as the
McCormack Act, was passed, requiring agents of foreign governments to register
with the xVttorney General and to label their propaganda. In 1939, the Hatch Act
forbade membership in Communist, or like organizations, to Federal employees.
In 1940, the Voorhis Act, supplementing the McCormack Act. required registra-
tion by native groups which participated in civilian-military drill and in specially
defined political activities. In 1940, by virtue of the Smith Act, it became a
Federal crime to "advocate, abet, advise, or teach" the overthrow of the Govern-
ment by force or violence. In 1947 the Taft-Hartley Act denied to unions whose
officers' failed to file non-Communist affidavits, the procedures and benefits of the
National Labor Relations Act. And in 19.50, Congress passed the Internal
Security Act, which requires the registration of all Comnuuiist organizations,
prohibits tlie issuance of passports to members of such organizations, and pro-
hibits the employment of such members by the Federal Government, or by private
defense facilities. All of these enactments, except the Taft-Hartley Act, provided
for criminal penalties.
If the measures just enumerated were justifiable infringements on individual
liberty in the face of the Communist threat, and in each instance Congress found
them to be justified, certainly far less justification is needed for legislation such
as that under discussion, which does not suppress or outlaw the Communist
Party and does not forbid any individual to be, or become, a philosophical Com-
munist, or a full-fledged and active member of the party, but which, in effect,
only prohibits such a person from holding a position of influence in a labor union
if that union wishes to continue to avail itself of the special rights and protection
afforded it by specific Federal laws.
It seems clear from the foregoing that there is ample justification, as a matter
of congressional policy, for the proposed legislation.
Vr. CONGRESSIONAL POWER
Coming now to the portion of the issue which requires a determination of
congressional power to enact such legislation, it is necessary first to state certain
fundamental principles with respect to the liberty of free speech vouchsafed by
the first amendment to the Constitution. All of those principles can be gleaned
from the 1951 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case which
involved tlie conviction of the top 11 Communists for violation of the Smith Act
(Dennis v. United States (341 U. S. 494, m L. ed. 1137) . They are as follows :
1. The right of free speech "is not an unlimited, unqualified right, but * * *
must, on occasion, be subordinated to other values and considerations."
2. "No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to pro-
hibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The
question with which we are concerned * * * is not whether Congress has such
power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the first * * *
amendment (s) to the Constitution."
3. Restrictions on freedom of speech are constitutional where there is a "clear
and present danger" that "substantive evil" will result from nonrestriction.
4. Since the purposes and activities of tlie Communist Party constitute such a
"clear and present danger" legislation which punishes the advocacy of the doc-
trines of the Communist Party does not violate the first amendment.
The statute involved in the Dennis case presented a far more difficult question
as to the power of Congress than does the proposed legislation under discussion.
The Smith Act made it a crime to "advocate, abet, advise, or teach" the over-
throw of the Government by force or violence. Actually, the Supreme Court had
already, prior to the Dennis case, passed upon the very contention which is
advanced against the Goldwater-Rhodes bill.
In American Communications Association v. Douds (839 U. S. 382, 94 L. ed 925
(Sup. Ct. 1950) ) , the Court had before it the non-Communist affidavit requirement
(Sec 9 (h)) of the Taft-Hartley Act. The petitioners in that case contended
that the requirement was unconstitutional because it deprived "unions, union
officers, and members of unions of freedom of thought, speech and assemlily, in
violation of the first amendment." The Court rejected that contention. The fol-
lowing quotations from the decision will demonstrate more clearly than attempts
to paraphrase them the reasoning of the Court and the basis for its decision :
"One such obstruction (of commerce), which it was the purpose of section 9
(h) of the act to remove, was the so-called political strike. Substantial amounts
82 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
of evidence were presented to various committees of Congress, including tbe com-
mittees immediately concerned with lahor legislation, that Communist leaders of
labor unions had in the past, and would continue in the future, to subordinate
legitimate trade union objectives to obstructive strikes when dictated by party
leaders, often in support of the policies of a foreign government. And other
evidence supports the view that some union leaders, who hold to a belief in
violent overthrow of the Government for reasons other than loyalty to the Com-
munist Party, likewise regard strikes and other forms of direct action designed
to serve ultimate revolutionary goals, as the primary objectives of labor unions
which they control."
*******
"No useful purpose would be served by setting out at length the evidf'nce
before Congress relating to the problem of political strikes, nor can we attempt
to assess the validity of each item of evidence. It is sufficient to say that Con-
gress had a great mass of material before it which tended to show that Commu-
nists and others prescribed by the statute had iufiltratetl union organizations,
not to support and further trade union objectives, including the advocacy of
change by democratic methods, but to make them a device by which commerce
and industry might be disrupted when the dictates of political policy required
such action."
***** 4: *
"The difficult question that emerges is whether, consistently with the first
amendment. Congress by statute, may exert these pressures upon labor unions
to deny positions of leadership to certain persons who are identified by particular
beliefs and political affiliations."
•F •I* sjc ^ ^ qC )p
"Although the first amendment provides that Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech, press or assembly, it has long been established
that those freedoms themselves are dependent upon the power of constitutional
government to survive. If it is to survive, it must have power to protect itself
against unlawful conduct and, under some circumstances, against incitements to
commit unlawful acts. Freedom of speech thus does not comprehend the right
to speak on any subject at any time."
si* *l* y* jt ^ ^ jls
"Government's interest here is not in preventing the dissemination of Commu-
nist doctrine, or the holding of particular beliefs, because it is feared that un-
lawful action will result therefrom if free speech is practiced. Its interest is iu
protecting the free flow of commerce from what Congress considers to be sub-
stantial evils of conduct that are not the products of speech at all. Section 9(h),
in other words, does not interfere with speech, because Congress fears the con-
sequences of speech ; it regulates harmful conduct which Congress has deter-
mined is carried on by persons who may be identified by their political affiliations
and beliefs."
*******
"In essence, the problem is one of weighing the probable effects of the statute
upon the free exercise of the right of speech and assembly against the congres-
sional determination that political strikes are evils of conduct which cause sub-
stantial harm to interstate commerce and that Communists and others identified
by section 9 (h) pose continuing threats to that public interest when in positions
of union leadership."
*****:!<*
"But, insofar as the problem is one of drawing inferences concerning the
need for regulation of particular forms of conduct from conflicting evidence,
this Court is in no position to substitute its judgment as to the necessity or
desirability of the statute for that of Congress."
* * * * * * *
"In this legislation. Congress did not restrain the activities of the Commu-
nist Party as a political organization; nor did it attempt to stifle beliefs. Com-
pare West Vir(/inia SUite Board of Education v. Barnctte (319 U. S. 624, 87
L. edition 1628, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 147 A. L. R. 674 (1943) ). Section 9 (h) touches
only a relative handful of persons leaving the great majority of persons of
the identified affiliations and beliefs completely free from restraint. And it
leaves those few who are affected free to maintain their affiliations and beliefs
subject only to possible loss of iiositions which Congress has concluded are
being abused to the injury of the public by members of the described groups."
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 83
"It is contended that the principle that statutes touching first-amendment
freedoms must be narrowly drawn dictates that a statute aimed at politcal
strikes should make the calling of such strikes unlawful, but should not at-
tempt to bring about the removal of union officers, with its attendant effect
upon first-amendment rights. We think, however, that the legislative judgment
that interstate commerce must be protected from a continuing threat of such
strikes is a permissible one in this case. The fact that the injury to interstate
commerce would be an accomplished fact before any sanctions could be applied,
the possibility that a large number of such strikes might be called at a time
of external or internal crisis, and the practical difficulties which would be en-
countered in detecting illegal activities of this kind, are factors which are
I)ersuasive that Congress should not be powerless to remove the threat, not
limited to punishing the act."
Hf * * * ^ * 1(!
"Of course, we agree that one may not be imprisoned or executed because
he holds particular beliefs. But to attack the strawman of 'thought control' is
to ignore the fact that the sole effect of the statute upon one who believes in
overthrow of the Government by force and violence — and does not deny his
belief — is that he may be forced to relinquish his position as a union leader."
VII. CONCLUSION
The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Douds case and its
reasoning in the light of fundamental concepts of constitutional power and
individual liberties, should allay the fears of any sincere person who would
otherwise be perturbed over the contention that the proposed legislation con-
stitutes "thought control." lu principle, the Goldwater-Rhodes bill embodies
the same approach to the problem of communism in labor unions as that of
the Taft-Hartley Act, namely, to deny instrumentalities, admitted or proven
to be Communist-controlled, the opportunity, under the cover of rights and
privileges granted by Federal laws, to foster the class warfare and to foment
the industrial strife which constitute an integral part of the Communist pat-
tern. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, such Communist control has to be admitted
before Communist-directed union conduct is denied the special legislative sup-
port and protection afforded by Federal law. It is quite obvious that the Taft-
Hartley procedure has not worked with any marked degree of success — mainly
because of the Communist's lack of respect for an oath and of the ease with
which the oath requirement can be circumvented. The proposed legislation
abandons the oath procedure and gives the Government the opportunity to
prove, if it can, the existence of Communist control. Once that fact is estab-
lished, by due process and open proceedings, the consequences which ensue
are substantially the same as those in tlie present law.
The essence of the proposed legislation is to provide a means whereby the
members of a labor union, the rank and file, as they are commonly called, can
be informed by their Government, on the basis of proven facts, that their leader-
ship is such as to constitute a threat to themselves and to their country. When
they have been so advised, they are then given reasonable time and opportunity
to decide whether they wish to continue as a Communist-controlled union, or to
rid themselves of their subversive leadership. If they choose the former course,
which they have the right to do, no prohibition is imposed against their choice.
The only result will be the withdrawal of special Federal support and protection
for union conduct which, because of Communist direction, the Congress believes
to be inimical to the best interests of the United States.
It is the Communist-directed union conduct, not the Communist idea or belief,
which this legislation would attempt to regulate. The facts requiring legisla-
tion to protect this Nation against "communism in action" are a matter of
public record. The power of Congress to provide the means for that protection
within the framework of our constitutional government is a matter of judicial
decision. This is the answer to those with conscientious fears of the implica-
tions of this type of legislation. It is the correct answer to the issue defined at
the outset.
Only those who fail or refuse to recognize the proven objectives of commimism,
or those who refuse to accept the established fact that the infiltration of the
trade-union movement is a primary means of attaining those Communist objec-
tives, will disagree with this conclusion. The others, the informed and loyal
members of society, will accept the findings of Congress and the decisions of the
courts. They will be able to disting-uish between "thought" and "action" and
84 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
to recognize the necessity and justification for controlling the latter, not the
former.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Cliairman, that concludes my testimony on
this legislation, and I want to again thank the committee for the oppor-
tunity of presenting this report. I feel that this is vital legislation and
I am certain that if tlie proper bill comes out of this committee, the
Senate will act on it. The President in his message, as you will recall,
used words that could be construed to mean that he was hopeful of this
type of legislation being presented so that we could do away with the
non-Communist affidavits of Taft-Hartley, both for the employees
and now for the employer, as the President has suggested.
Senator Welker. Tlie acting chairman wants to thank the distin-
guished Senator from Arizona and make this observation: that in
the many hearings over which I ha^e presided, I have never heard
more profound, sincere, and adequate testimony. I congratulate the
Senator from Arizona.
Senator Butler. May I on the record associate myself with the
remarks of the Senator from Idaho.
Senator Welker. The meeting Avill recess.
(Thereupon, at 11 a. m., the meeting was recessed, subject to the call
of the Chair.)
SUBVEESIYE INFLUENCE IN CEKTAIN LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS
FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1954
United States Senate,
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administkation
OF the Internal Security Act and Other Internal
Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary,
W ashington^ D. G.
executive SESSION CONFIDENTIAL
The task force of the subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 : 15
a. m., in room 341, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler,
presiding.
Also present : Richard Arens, special counsel ; and Frank W. Schroe-
der and Edward R. Duffy, professional staff members.
Senator Butler. Mr. Denham, do you solenmly promise and swear
that the evidence you will give the task force of the Internal Security
Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God ?
Mr. Denham. I do.
Senator Butler. Mr. Arens, will you proceed ?
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT N. DENHAM, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Denham, will you kindly identify yourself by name,
residence, and occupation?
Mr. Denham. I am Robert N. Denham. My residence is at 207
West Bradley Lane, Chevy Chase, Md. I am an attorney-at-law,
practicing in Washington. My office address is 1025 Connecticut
Avenue. My firm name is Denliam & Humphrey.
Mr. Arens. Will you kindly cite for the record a brief resume of
your background, with particular reference, if you please, to your ex-
perience in the field of labor-management relationships ?
Mr. Denham. Well, there is a certain amount of it that goes back to
the time prior to my association with the National Labor Relations
Board, and has to do with some of our old financial matters, when I
was associated with the Irving National Bank in New York City.
We frequently had occasion, as bankers sometimes do, to take more
or less charge of the operation of the business of some of our cus-
tomers, and that threw me very frequently in contact with labor in the
abstract, and very frequently labor, as employed, but not very much
of labor relations, as we know it today. That was back in the twen-
ties.
85
86 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
My first real contact was in 1938, wlien I was asked by the Xational
Labor Relations Board if I would hear, as trial examiner, a few cases
for them, in order to break down the backlog that they had of cases
that were jammed up on them. I was not well acquainted with the
Wagner Act at the time, but was given what information and mate-
ral was readily available, and I immediately set about hearing some
of the cases that the Board had pending.
Senator Butler. Mr. Denham, at that point, will you state for the
record when you went with the National Labor Relations Board ?
Mr. Denham. In March 1938.
Senator Buiter. In March of 1938 ?
Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. I expected to only be employed for a few
weeks, to get rid of three or four cases, but the few weeks extended
out into a number of years.
I made the necessary rearrangements of my affairs, to let that be
possible.
I continued on then with the Board as one of its trial examiners,
from March of 1938 until July of 1947, when I was appointed General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board under the provisions
of the Taft-Hartley Act.
Mr. Arens. Would you kindly give us a thumbnail sketch of the
powers and duties of the Office of General Counsel, under the provi-
sions of the Taft-Hartley Act ?
Mr. Denham. The General Counsel's duties, I might say, were
worked out when we got together, when the act was passed, and the
General Counsel had been designated. I got together with two of the
members of the Board, because Mr. Herzog was ill, and we worked out
those necessary additions to the legislation and the authority granted
by the legislation, which would allow the General Counsel to really do
the job. Our picture of it was that the General Counsel had complete
charge of and was responsible for all of the operation of the field work
of the Board, and it must be borne in mind that all of the business of
the Board originates in one of the regional offices in the field.
The General Counsel had charge of the selection and handling of
all of the personnel in the various field offices. There were, I believe,
22 regional field offices at that time. I do not recall the exact number.
There were several subregional offices running in personnel from a
couple of hundred in the New York office to maybe 25 or 30 in some
of the others.
His job there was to see that appropriate regulations were issued
for the conduct of the business of the offices, the treatment of petitions
and charges that were filed, investigations conducted, and then the
issuance of complaints, in cases which were complaint cases.
Autonomy was given to the regional directors, and, by way of a
continuance of the Wagiier Act operations, they were allowed to issue
complaints without reference to the General Counsel, so long as the
issuance of those complaints represented matters that were established
policy under the new Taft-Hartley Act.
The attorneys were all under his direction and they worked accord-
ing to and under his direction and control, as that was exercised
through an Associate General Counsel.
Matters having to do with representation cases were reserved to the
Board, but the processing of those had to be done in the field, and
consequently the facilities of the General Counsel's offices in the field
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 87
were made available to the Board, and regional directors were desig-
nated as the agents of the Board for that purpose, and they conducted
their investigations on behalf of the Board.
Another one of the matters that was delegated to the General
Counsel was the control of section 9 (h) afiidavits, the non-Commu-
nist affidavits, which were all filed in Washington.
Mr. Arens. In just a few moments we would like to specifically
interrogate you in reference to that whole area of the 9 (h) affidavits,
but we are at this time just building a background.
Mr. Denham. Leaving the field operation, he was then charged
with the direction and control of all of the attorneys, which meant the
attorneys who were in an advisory capacity in Washington, and the
enforcement attorneys, whose job it was to enforce the Board's orders,
and to defend any matters of litigation.
The Board was not permitted to employ any attorneys except that
the individual members of the Board were allowed to employ law
clerks to look over records and advise them as to their content, and
serve directly, just the member by whom they were appointed.
By special arrangement and delegation, the General Counsel was
given complete charge of all the administrative affairs of the Board.
He had charge of all the so-called housekeeping.
Budgetary matters were handled by the General Counsel and the
Chairman of the Board and the Board members jointly.
The General Counsel was the last available source of appeal. If a
person filed a charge in the field and the regional director felt that it
was not worthy of the issuance of a complaint, the complaining party
then had the right to file an appeal with the General Counsel as a
matter of right, and the General Counsel had a Division there of men
whom I personally selected to advise me on such appeals.
They were almost the only ones whom I had the freedom to select.
I had to take over most of the rest of the organization from the old
Wagner Act setup.
That new group was the Policies and Appeals Division of the Gen-
eral Counsel's Office. They made an investigation and examination
of whatever records were available from the field office, arrived at
their conclusions, and then discussed them with a committee of the
General Counsel's Washington office, and the results of w^hat that
consideration might be were then submitted to the General Counsel
for approval.
Senator Butler. Does that mean that the General Counsel was the
final authority on whether or not a complaint should be issued in cases
arising under the complaint of unfair labor practices ?
Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. There was no appeal from his decision.
Senator Biitler. Pie was the final authority?
Mr. Denham. I might say it was sometimes embarrassing, and that
is one thing I think the public should have a break on, because no
man is perfect.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Denham, may I ask this: You have given consider-
able background and a general idea, I think, for the record, which
obviously qualifies you as an expert in this field. Without indicating
the details, could you tell us when it was that your association At^ith the
National Labor Relations Board as General Counsel was terminated?
Mr. Denham. September 18, 1950.
Mr. Arens. Was that by resignation ?
88 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. I may say it was suggested by the President,
through Mr. Steelman, that tlie resignation would be very w^elcome.
Mr. Arens. I assume— and if I am mistaken, please correct me,
that you regarded that as a discharge by the President ?
Mr. Denham. Practically that ; yes.
Mr. Arens. May I respectfully suggest at this time, if you please,
Mr. Chairman, that there be inserted in the record at this point in
haec verba, the contents of section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act, so
that tliis record will reflect the language to which Mr. Denham will
allude in his testimony?
Senator Butler. It will be so ordered.
(The section referred to follows:)
(h) No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting
commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organi-
zation under subsection (c) of this section, no petition under section 9 Ce) (1>
shall be entertained, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge
made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 10, unless there is
on file with the Board an aflSdavit executed contemporaneously or within the
preceding 12-month period by each officer of such labor organization and the
officers of any national or international labor organization of which it is an
affiliate or constitvient unit, that he is not a member of the Communist Party
or affiliated with such party, and that he does not believe in, and is not a member
of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of
the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional
methods. The provisions of section .35A of the Criminal Code shall be appli-
cable in respect to such affidavits.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Denham, would you kindly tell us on the basis of
your background and experience the objective or reason for 9 (h) ?
What is the problem sought to be attacked by 9 (h) ?
Mr. Denham. I can only give you my concept of the legislative
mind on that subject as developed from the history and from comments
made from some committees in executive sessions in tlie early days
of the act.
Senator Butler. And also, Mr. Denham, your connection and asso-
ciation directly with the author of the bill — or did you have such
association ?
Mr. Denham. I was not very well acquainted with Mr. Taft and
Mr. Hartley until after the bill had been passed. I was quite well
acquainted with Senator Donnell and was responsible for throwing
some thoughts out wliich may or may not have been passed on by him,
but many of which made their appearance in the bill finally.
So that is for just what it may be worth. The thing that we had
all complained about, and it was just the rumblings of those who were
bitterly opposed to the thing that we call communism, was that we
had found an influence in the operation of many of the labor unions.
It was very well known that Harry Bridges definitely controlled the
longshoremen in San Francisco, and it was pretty well believed that
he had been and was a member of the Communist Party, and his han-
dling of that situation indicated that he had very little regard for
what we conceive to be the rules of law and order.
I may say that these are my own experiences. When I get to the
hearsay part, I will identify that.
We ran into a situation in the Northwest involving the Interna-
tional Woodworkers of America, which at that time had as its presi-
dent and a couple of its vice presidents men who were well-known or.
SUBVERSrV'E INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 89
definitel}', extensively reputed to be members of the Communist Party,
and their conduct of their business was exactly the same way.
The g:eneral counsel for that oraanization at that time had been a
very well-known member of the IWW, one of their legal lights, in the
earlier days. I had had some contacts with TWW in the days preced-
ing the First World War. I had occasion to come very closely in
contact with that situation and to observe the communistic tendencies.
We were trying to settle a situation involving the Carlisle Lumber
Co., in one of the Board's earliest cases. I wanted to put some men
back to work and get the lumber mills going. We had it all settled,
and this group of international officers came in. If I had had a base-
ball bat, they would all have been in the hospital.
They then called another meeting of the same group and, if I have
ever seen Communist influence in action in the labor unions, I saw it
there, because I was invited to attend the meeting.
They finally said "We don't care a blankety-blank about the 275
men who are being thrown out of work in this thing, or will be, or
their families. That does not make a bit of difference. AVhat we are
going to do is, we are going to close this outfit up. That is all we want
to do."
It was just that general, and, incidentally, at that meeting they suc-
ceeded in having the crowd completely reverse themselves and go
along their line which promised nothing, even though a few days before
they had unanimously voted for the settlement. Fortunately, World
War II saved them.
As a trial examiner I was called on to hear some cases in Hollywood
in 1945. They involved some of the studio workers, the Council for
Studio Unions, as they were then known, which included practically
all of the employees of the various crafts in these studios.
When I mention "studios" I am speaking of the eight major studios
that were in operation in Hollywood at that time.
The controversy that arose was an acute one, although it involved
only a very few people, some fifty-odd. An election had been ordered
by the Board and every vote cast had been changed.
Incidentally, I point that out as one of the outstanding examples of
what can happen when the employees in an economic strike have been
replaced but nevertheless are allowed to vote in an election.
The issues there were very acute. I will not describe them unless
you want them.
It involved the demands of this Council of Studio Unions, which
was headed up by a man named Herbert Sorrell as president and a
man named Mussa as vice president.
They very definitely attempted to sabotage the situation in that
case by walking out of the hearing that the Board was holding, pre-
liminary to ordering an election, without any cause, and they simply
told me when they were on the stand and I asked why they had walked
out, they said they had all of these employees signed up to be their
members, they were abandoning their old union and going over to the
new one. The further answer was, "We weren't going to be delayed by
any Labor Board hearings, and things of that sort. We are going to
make those — again "blankety-blank so-and-so's do business with us."
Well, the outcome of that is a matter of history and record in the
records of the Board.
90 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
I came back and made certain recommendations which would have
been very, very obnoxious to SorrelFs outfit, and I may say that
Sorrell definitely was a Commie. I have held his card in my hand and
seen it. Incidentally he appeared before a congressional connnittee
some several years ago, gave some testimony. His cai'd was put in
evidence and was examined by the FBI. He had used a diiferent name^
but anyone who had ever seen the signature could not mistake it.
He had made a mistake in trying to sign it and then wrote over the
mistaken letter anyway. The card was sent to the FBI for verifica-
tion against authentic signatures by SorrelL The FBI came back
with a report that Sorrell, the witness, and the person v,'\\o signed this
card were the same person. Nothing was ever done about it.
Mr. Arens. Do you have his full name ?
Mr. Denham. Herbert Sorrell. He is still out in Los Angeles, and
I think he is the business agent for the painters' union in the Holly-
wood Studios.
Mr. Arens. In Hollywood itself?
Mr. Denham. Yes; the studios there. The painters' union in the
studios is a separate organization.
I do not know to what extent this Council of Studio Unions is still
functioning but I have been told that they have practically dropped
out of existence.
] have also been told that Sorrell still is there and is now in liis
original job as business agent for the painters' union there.
Those are just three outstanding examples in which I have person-
ally come in contact. There was a real problem and the idea was that
the Congress would put a stop to this communistic control and in-
fluence in labor organizations. It was pretty well known that there
were manv organizations in the East which came in the same class.
Most of them have now already been found out, been pointed out, and
many of them have been disciplined by their own organizations. I
am thinking of what the CIO did with some of its organizations when
they threw them out.
What the}^ were trying to do was to make it impossible for labor
unions to utilize the services of the National Labor Relations Board
if they had in their list of officers anyone who could not under oath
state that he was not a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Arens, Could I at this point ask you, in view of the fact that
you have given us a very fine background of the 9 (h) provision, to
tell us, on the basis of your experience and intimate knowledge, Mr.
Denham, the history. What happened after the passage of 9 (h) ?
Mr. Denham. It did not take very long. At first the unions that had
these background reputations of communism held off. They could
not make up their minds just what they wanted to do.
The A. F. of L. led the parade, however. In October 1947, I think
it Avas, following the effective date of the act, the A. F. of L. had its
convention out in San Francisco and amended its constitution.
Their constitution provided that they would have a president and
secretary and treasurer and 13 or 14 vice presidents, who were the
Board of Trustees. They did not change the structiu'e at all. They
simply changed the name more than anything else.
That Avas done because Mr. Lewis was one of those vice presidents,
and he had stated that he would not sign such an affidavit regardless.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 91
and, of course, they knew, and they had come to me and asked me if I
could not let down the bars, and I would not do it, and said that if they
did not have Lewis's signature on there, and he was a vice president,
they would simply not be able to function, and none of the A. F. of L.
unions could function.
So they changed their constitution and said "We have just two
officers. One is the president and the other one is the secretary-treas-
urer, or whatever it is."
Of course, some time after that there was a question about whether
the A. F. of L. had to liave any affidavits in there at all.
That was a battle which I fought with the Board for almost 3 years,
before we finally got the Supreme Court to tell the Board that the law
meant what it said.
Then other unions began making similar changes. They would
eliminate a certain office held by somebody who could not sign an
affidavit without endangering his liberty and without committing per-
jury. Those switches were made in a number of organizations.
The packing workers did it. The office workers did it.
Mr. Arens. Was the office workers union the Flaxer union?
Mr. Denham. Yes.
Mr. Arens. That is the one that is Communist controlled. Did the
fur workers do it?
Mr. Denham. I do not know. The fur workers did not come in
until much later.
Mr. Arens. I see.
Mr. Denham. There was not anything that could be done about
that at the immediate time.
Subsequently the Board did try to cover that, but not until the other
stuff had developed, and we first got an announcement by a man named
Perlo, who v\^as an. official in the furniture workers union.
Perlo announced that he had been for 10 years an active and ardent
member of the Communist Party, that he believed in it, that he was a
supporter of it.
I think the Perlo story is pretty w^ell known. He announced that
he was going to protect his union by resigning from the Communist
Party on one day, and signing the affidavit on the next day, to the
efTect that he is not, underscoring the word "is", is not a member of the
Communist Party and does not support them.
Tliat was the first time that that language of the Act had a focus put
on it in that fashion. He signed his affidavit. I knew by reputation
much of his background.
I immediately sent the affidavit, within 24 hours, up to the attor-
ney general's office and suggested that they might want to do some-
thing about it.
I had sojne telephone conversations with Alec Campbell. I had
many conversations with Alec Campbell about it and he said, "Well,
that is just what we want. We are going to do something about it."
Nothing happened.
Well, it was not very long before we got some of these affidavits in
from others. I had instructed the man in charge of these affidavits
that when any suspected one came in — and he knew whose I regarded
as suspected ones — to send them immediately to my office.
They came along with Matles, from the United Electrical Workers.
92 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Then came Herbert Sorrell's, this fellow I spoke of. I would shoot
them up to Alec Campbell, and I couldn't give you the names of all of
them, to save my life. There must have been 50 or GO.
Then they said "Fine, we are working on it." We never got very
far.
Then Mclnerney came in after Campbell resigned, and then came
Harry Bridges' affidavit, and then Ben Gold's affidavit, and a few
others equally notorious.
So it got to a point where it was quite evident that the Department
of Justice was not going to do anything, and when I kept jacking
Mclnerney up he finally came out and said, "Mr. Denham, we snnply
are not going to make any effort to prosecute any of the people who
signed these affidavits."
And I think that was publicly announced.
He said, "because of the language which the affidavits use from the
statute."
Mr. Arens. He meant the language in the present tense ?
Mr. Denham. Yes; that was the whole thing. He said, "There
is nothing to prevent a man from saying he resigned yesterday, and
therefore he is not a member."
That was where the weakness developed. I begged and pleaded
with him, and I think wrote a letter or two on the subject saying, "For
God's sake, the American public is entitled to at least have you try
one, and, if the thing is so deficient as all that then, of course. Con-
gress will undoubtedly want to do something about it, but I don't be-
lieve that the attorney general is entitled to simply say 'this law is
not enforceable and we are not going to do anything about it,' so
that a man who commits perjury and knows that he is committing
perjury in his heart is allowed to get away with it."
But that made no impression and nothing was done, and more of the
affidavits came in after the announcement was made.
Mr. Arens. Was any test case developed on 9 (h) to your knowl-
edge ?
Mr. Denham. Later on there were two cases, that I recall. They
got one poor little colored business agent in a union of laborers down
here in Washington, as I remember, and there was a case that was
brought against him. I do not know what happened to it.
Then there was another one which was subsequently reversed by
the Supreme Court on jurisdictional grounds, as I recall. That case
was brought up in New Jersey. These are the only ones about which
I know.
Mr. Arens. I think the time has arrived, Mr. Denham, for us to
ask you what your appraisal is of 9 (h) . You have told us about the
background and something of the background of 9 ( h ) . AVliat is your
appraisal, on the basis of your own experience as an expert, of the
efficacy of 9 (h) ? „....,
Mr. Denham. As it is now written, so that the affidavit is in the
present tense in which makes it unusable as the basis for prosecution,
then I say that it should be changed ; but the theory and doctrine of
9 (h) is one of the most valuable things we have in the law, in its pres-
ent structure. I feel that if 9 (h) were revamped— and revamped in a
way that would not only say "I am not," but "for a considerable time,"
and I would go back not a year or 2 years, but I would go back 15 years
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 93
or more — "I have never been a member or a supporter or a sympath-
izer with the Communist doctrines or Communist Party, advocating
the overthrow of the Government by force," and that would have its
effect and would be a valuable thing.
Mr. Arens. May I ask you a question or two right at that point,
Mr. Denham ?
I am not in any sense taking issue or trying to debate the subject
with you, but do you not feel that even though 9 (h) were revamped
so as to, on its face, at least, embrace persons who had at any time been
members of the Communist Party that it would be relatively simple
for the Communists themselves in a labor organization to step aside
and not hold office, but to put people up whom they could control, and
still have the labor organization under the control of the Communist
Party ?
Mr. Denham, That is a point that is extremely well taken, and I
know of several places where it has been tried.
Mr. Arens. Then 9 (h) would not, even though it had been re-
vamped, meet that situation, would it ?
Mr. Denham. As long as it maintains that form, no, it would not
meet that situation.
I might say that we had a great deal of difficulty in arriving at
that conclusion, and, when I say "we," I am talking about the Board
and the General Counsel in August of 1947.
We had a great deal of difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to
who fitted into the term "officers" as the same is used in section 9.
"We tried all sorts of definitions, and there were a lot of people in
the picture then, not necessarily members of the Board, but we had
in our group at the time 12 or 11 staff members who were not inclined
to be as tough on digressions from things that we call American pro-
priety as I would like to see people be.
Consequently, there was a good deal of discouragement when we
attempted to go forward on it. We had a good deal of difficulty find-
ing anything that would meet a description of "officers," and finally,
in desperation, we said, "Well, we will take the constitutions of these
unions, and where any constitution describes an officer or an office, the
holder of that so-called office, or the man who is that officer, is an offi-
cer under this section, and that is going to be that."
So that was the way the term "officer" was limited.
Mr. Arens. You also have the problem there, do you not, that 9(h)
does not cover locals.
Mr. Denham. No; 9 (h) covers everything. That was where my
big battle with the Board came in.
Mr. Arens. The Board took the position that 9 (h) does not cover
locals ?
Mr. Denham, No. The Board took the position that 9 (h) did not
cover the A. F. of L. or the CIO ; that it covered only the international
unions that made up the A. F. of L. and CIO, the plumbers, and car-
penters, and fur workers and the rest of them, but stopped when the
top federations were reached.
Mr. Arens. I mean the locals w^ithin the nationals.
Mr. Denham. It did go down into the locals.
Mr. Arens. 9 (h) did?
Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. Our interpretation carried it right down.
43903—54 7
94 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Butler. Each one of the men that has come before tins
task force who holds any office in any local union must sign a Com-
munits affidavit?
Mr. Denham. That is quite true.
Mr. Duffy. This was your Highland Park Manufacturing case
that decided this, was it not?
Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. At first the Board and I were in agree-
ment that the structure of those who had to sign the affidavits started
off like a pyramid, in three parts, three major parts. The lower
major part was made up of the officers of various locals, the locals
of the carpenters and of the teamsters and of all the rest of them, in
both the A. F. of L. and CIO, and independent groups as well.
The next higher segment of that pyramid were the officers of the
various internationals who made up the federations; that is, the
national officials of the carpenters and teamsters and the rest of them.
My position always was that the pyramid went right up to the top
and took in the officers of the A. F. of L. and the officers of the CIO
and any other of tliese other federations.
The Board changed its position, however, and reached the conclu-
sion that that should not be the rule. As a result, we had really very
much of a knockdown and drag-out battle over that, and for a couple
of years or more the Board persisted and took the position that this
was it and would not permit it to be litigated.
They said, "That is discretionary, whether they have complied with
section 9 (h) ; whether we have received the affidavits; that is the end
of it, and nobody is allowed to question it."
But we succeeded in getting it before the courts, and eventually the
Supreme Court got it and sustained the position that the A. F. of L.
and the CIO are labor organizations within the meaning of that act
and had to provide the affidavits as well.
Mr. Aeens. Did you have difficulty with reference to how you in-
terpreted the words "membership or affiliation"'? Did that create any
particular problem?
Mr. Denham. That was part of it; yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? I think that
would be particularly interesting here. Would you kindly give us,
Mr. Denham, what your interpretation was, when you were General
Counsel, of the words "member" and "affiliate" within section 9 (h)
of the Taft-Hartley Act?
Mr. Denham. That goes back to the Perlo matter. The thing was
originally begun with Perlo and followed by all those who came in
his tracks. They said, "Why, I resigned yesterday, and I made this
affidavit today, and therefore I am not subject to any prosecution for
perjury."
My position was that those were not good-faith affidavits, that they
were matters which — while the Board had to accept them at face
value — were nevertheless matters which obviously were made in bad
faith and did not constitute a resignation from the Communist Party
and a complete fracture of their relationships, and it should be matter
that would justify prosecution, regardless of the language of the act,
which is in the present tense.
I was unable to make any impression on the Department of Justice,
however. They never did proceed on that line, so that from that point
of view we never saw eye to eye, and we never got any action.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 95
As to the other matter that you mentioned, though, about the
question of the structure, the Board, in making its determination as
to who would be required to sign these affidavits and arrivnig at the
conchision that the officers of the A. F. of L. and CIO woukl not be
required, interpreted the term "national or international labor or-
ganization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit'' as applying
only to the international unions and their various locals.
As I say, I was of the opinion concerning the national organization
of the A. F. of L. that the internationals are all affiliates of the A. F..
of L. and the CIO and that the locals are constituent units of the
various affiliates, and therefore the pyramid went up to a point.
That, however, has been decided now, and we do not have to worry
about it any longer.
But I fairly believe that there should have been, and there could
have been, successful prosecution on that matter if appropriately
carried out along the lines of good faith.
Mr. Arens. In other words, then, a person ^Yho resigns from the
Communist Party only for the purpose of complying with the pro-
visions of 9 (h) has not, in your o])inion, severed or fractured his
relations with the Communist Party ?
Mr. Denham. I think he still believes in the Communist Party.
Senator Butler. Mr. Denham, the President the other day, in his
hibor message to the Congress, intimated that he would like to see
section 9 (h) go out of the act and some legislation similar to the
legislation proposed here in S. 1254 and 1606 be substituted in its
place.
What is your view in that connection?
Mr. Denham. "Well, it is the result that all of us want; and, if
legislation would accomplish the result, I think all of us should and
would be for it.
This section as it now stands does not do the job and is deficient. It
slioukl be changed if you are going to use it.
There are any number of approaches. I think the one contained in
S. 1606 is an excellent one, with one or two possible deficiencies there.
One of them is that you will note from experience that, when you
get into litigation or anything in the nature of a hearing or lawsuit
Avith any of those who are in the Communist picture, they can drag
it out until it becomes interminable.
If we had very much of that, as unquestionably there would be, I
just wonder whether we would really find facilities to carry out that
extended litigation.
Mr. iVRENs. I do not quite understand.
Senator Butler. I think the point that Mr. Denham is making is
this. Unless you. take the life away from the union upon the com-
plaint being found to be substantial by the Subversive Activities
Control Board, you do not have a workable bill.
Mr. Arens. Isn't that what S. 1606 does?
Mr. Denham. That is what S. 1606 does. That is the one thing.
Who is going to police this communistic thing?
Now, conceivably this is the proper way to do it, and I like the
theory of it with the single possible exception that there might h&
some sort of conflict between the Labor Board and your special Board
here, growing out of each one's feeling that his own little special
96 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
bailiwick is being invaded, and that conceivably might come into the
picture.
It might be well to give consideration — and consideration has prob-
ably been already given — to possibly merging the procedures here into
the operations of the National Labor Relations Board, and let them do
a little policing on their own.
Mr. Akens. "\Ylien you say "merging" do you mean merging the
function prescribed in S.1606 for the Subversive Activities Control
Board, and the National Labor Relations Board?
Mr. Denham. I do not know whether it is feasible, but this is think-
ing out loud, as it were.
I have not had opportunity to give any detailed study to the matter.
Senator Butler. That leads me to another question, Mr. Denham :
Do you not think it would be more desirable to put this problem in
the field of internal security and take it away from labor relations
altogether? It is not really a matter affecting labor relations.
Mr. Denham. Under this bill, S. 1606, Senator, that is exactly what
is being accomplished, and the Labor Board is being served with notice
that this is the finding ; that this is what, under the law, we have found,
and that this is a directive to you to lay off this subversive outfit and,
in fact, withdraw any bargaining power that they now have.
Senator Butler. And they would have no discretion in that regard.
Mr. Denham. They would have no discretion at all.
Senator Butler. And the chance of conflict then w^ould be at a
minimum. They would have no discretion. They would have to
put it into effect.
Mr. Denham. This bill has another feature. Of course, you will
find that that committee would find itself involved in an avalanche
of litigation immediately, going to the constitutionality, just exactly as
the Wagner Act did, in 1935. But that is a calculated risk that we
have to take in passing any legislation that is of this sort.
Mr. Arens. What would be the allegation with reference to con-
stitutionality?. I am not clear on that.
Mr. Denham. Well, you w^ould find they would probably come
both on the infringement of the right of free speech and the right
of assembly, and a lot of other things of that character — the same
things that have been brought up by the Communists and our civil
rights organizations.
Mr. Arens. This would certainly be within the purview of the
Internal Security Act.
Mr. Denham. Definitely, I think so. I am not raising the ques-
tion of constitutionality, because I think it can be brought within
the purview of the Internal Security Act.
Mr. Arens. May I ask you in passing, what is your appraisal, from
the constitutional standpoint, which the Senator discussed a moment
ago, whereby the right of the labor organization to act as a bargaining
representative under the National Labor Relations Act would be de-
prived to it, upon a finding of substantial domination of the organi-
zation by the Communists?
In other words, are you depriving them of due process?
Mr. Denham. I am between two fires on a thing of that sort. I
would like to see it done. I would like to see a board of this sort
cloaked with power to use, and given discretionary authority to pro-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 97
ceed along those lines. I think it would be intended that they would
have that in any bill that was passed, but there again you would
probably find that this is going a little bit too far.
I say that you may find that you would be charged with advanc-
ing too far over into government by men rather than government
by laws.
The National Labor Relations Board has taken the position in
defending its right, for instance, to set aside perfectly valid con-
tracts, has taken the position before the courts, and there was one
case that I argued up in Chicago last week, which involved that au-
thority of the National Labor Eelations Board to set aside an ab-
solutely valid contract that had no defects whatever, on the theory
that there had been a schism in the ranks of the employees which was
such that it would serve the welfare of the country for the Board to
intercede and hold a new election.
This falls in that category, so I think it would be rather difficult
for the Board to take that position.
Senator Butler. Now, Mr. Denham, labor itself has taken the po-
sition that you can do administratively what S. 1606 would do legis-
latively. I think it was Mr. Carey who appeared before the
Humphrey committee in 1952, and suggested that we can get around
Communist infiltration in labor unions by withdrawing from the
employer his right to contract with a Communist union. That would
{^reserve the bargaining right, but there would not be anything to
)argain over, because the contractive union has left the factory and
has gone somewhere else.
He suggested that it could be handled almost exactly in the way
that this bill would handle it.
Mr. Denham. I would rather not comment on Mr. Carey. He and
I have had so many differences of opinion officially that I probably
do not have the same agreeable regard for his opinions as other people
might have. If you are going to do a thing, there is only one way to
do it, and that is, to do it, and do it straight from the shoulder.
I have some very definite opinions with reference to these Com-
munist activities. I expressed them in a letter that I wrote to you
acknowledging receipt of a copy of this bill, some 6 or 8 months ago
and, if any legislation is to be passed, it should be absolute and un-
equivocal in its language, and definite in its purpose.
Mr. Arens. Do you have any doubts on any of the phraseology in
any of this proposed legislation ?
Mr. Denham. There are just a few things in this bill where I feel
questions might be raised.
Mr. Arens. I think it would be helpful to the committee to have
you point those out.
Mr. Denham. They are not material. They are little things.
The outstanding thing is, as I say in the letter to Senator Butler
here on April 28, that a glance at the bill indicates one outstanding
virtue that it has.
Senator Butler. I am wondering if it would not be well to put that
letter into the record. That letter will be inserted into the record.
98 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
(The letter referred to follows:)
April 28, IDaS.
Hon. John Marshall Butler,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Senator Butler: I find your letter of April 20, to which was at-
tached a copy of your bill, S. 1606, pertaining to the control of Communists in
labor unions, when I returned to my office this morning. A quick glance at the
bill indicates one outstanding virtue it has that is possessed by none of the
others that have been suggested. I refer to the provision whereby you take a
leaf out of section S (b) (4) and 10 (1) of the Taft-Hartley Act and, in effect,
issue an injunction restraining the NLRB from entertaining any business from
the union under consideration at the very threshhold of your investigation. That
is when preemptory action is most necessary, but I am afraid it will kick up
considerably more of a disturbance than has thus far been caused by the in-
junction provisions of Taft-Hartley.
As you may well supix)se, I am giving a great deal of study to the present
investigations that are being made concerning the Taft-Hartley Act and hope
to be able to come up with some suggestions that will be of value to the Congi-ess
if we can just find appropriate sponsors for them.
This business of handling the Communists to many is like handling almost
any other knotty problem, and you will not have solved it unless someone takes
hold of it with very firm hands and, continuing his grip, forces it through to
final I'ecognition.
I regret my inability to find anything that is honorable in any position the Com-
munists take, or any movement or promises they make. Apparently those who
are individuals in the Communist Party and tho.se who are the international
organizations in the world structure live by the same philosophy, and that is that
their world is theirs to plunder and to lie and to cheat, and that any method
of doing so is wholly justifiable. My answer to tliat is to scrap the United
Nations, bring out our generals who are of the MacArthur and Van Fleet type,
recognize that there is one treatment for the rule or ruin bully, call for volunteers
to apply that ti'eatment, and then proceed. To be sure, it will cost some Ameri-
can lives and be another drain on our economy, but if we continue to treat these
Communist nations, and the individuals of the party as those who have either
national or personal consciences, sooner or later the entire civilization of the
world is going to find it is backing off the shelf edge of a cliff into nothinguess.
This is not intended as warmongering, but is just another t.vpe of genuine
Americanism which, once upon a time, prodded our Pilgram Fathers to pa.v
bounties for the scalps of bears and other predatory animals when they very well
could have used the money for other purposes.
Sincerely,
Robert N. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Going back to discussing these questions of possible
minor things in the text, I can only make one suggestion, and that is,
that nothing be left to the imagination in planning a bill of this sort
and in finding any of the remedies which are sought.
I think that it would be well to give consideration — if it can be
done — to things that may not be available now, and one of those things
is the FBI records.
I do not know to what extent you have those records available, but
get those records of persons who would be made the subject of charges
under section 117.
One of the great powers that the Labor Board has is in the source
of its investigation and the extent, the places, to which it can go in its
investigation.
Thoy have been given very broad power of invesigation, and yon
should have the same thing for your Board in this case. It woidd
have to make some extended investigations and some very keen ones,
in order to arrive at the point where it could consistently say to the
Labor Board, "Here is a suspension order against this organization."
That is No. 1.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 99
Mr. Arens. Could I interpose a comment, and ask you ^Yhat you
think about it, Mr. Denham, so that this record brings up all the is-
sues.
Do you think it would be conducive to clarify, still keeping the bill
effective, if it were prescribed exclusively who it is that would bring
the charges under 117?
Mr. Denham. That, of course, raises another question, and I am now
going back to problems that we met in the Labor Board that parallel
the problems that are inherent in this.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, anybody can bring a
charge.
It does not have to be an employer. It does not have to be a union.
It doesn't even have to be an employee, when you get right down to it.
If you want to limit the source of your charges, where would you
place your limit ?
Mr. Arens. I do not know. I was just wondering if you had a
comment to make on that particular issue, because, as our 117 is pres-
ently drafted, there is no specification as to who would bring the
charge.
Mr. Denham. You have the same language here that is in the Taft-
Hartley Act and in the old Wagner Act, practically identical.
Mr. Arens. Do you think there should be a specification ?
Mr. Denham. AVell, in a case of this sort, the entire country's wel-
fare is at stake and is involved, and I just hate to let anybody file a
charge, because you are bound to have a lot of crackpot charges.
On the other hand, if you set limitations which will prevent the
individual who has some real information from filing a charge, you
may limit yourself out of court. I would rather give a whole lot more
thought to a suggestion like that than I have had an opportunity to
give since a telephone call yesterday morning, but I just do not know
where you would place the limit as to who might file charges.
Mr. Arens Well, you have a possibility of two extremes. You have
the possibility of your crackpot coming in and, as you say, cluttering
up your procedures, and on the other hand, if you get too specific in
designating who should bring the charge, that person may not be dis-
posed to bring charges when they ought to be brought.
Mr. Denham. That may be.
We attempted to do this in connection with the National Labor
Relations Board — and I think it could be equally applicable here :
There were a great many charges filed in the Labor Board by labor
unions who wanted to throw up a roadblock against some action by
a rival union, or some one who probably wanted to charge an inde-
pendent union with being company dominated.
Particularly was that true in representation cases where a contesting
union was not quite ready for the election, and they would file a charge,
utterly baseless, because the Board had a rule that it would not process
a representation case as lono; as there was a charge outstanding.
I set up a procedure which took a long time to get underway. It
required that when a person filed a charge, he had 72 hours, I think
it was, within which to produce to the Regional Office, sufficient evi-
dence of his own bona fide and the prima facie value of his charge, to
justify the office proceeding on it.
Until he did that the investigators were simply barred from going
out and trying to do anything. He had to bring in something to
100 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
justify the charge. It worked fairly well, because the rule was, that
the regional office was compelled to dismiss the case, dismiss the charge,
if they did not get that material in within a reasonable time.
Of course, they extended the 72 hours very frequently, to more time
than that, but it did serve to keep the docket clear of crackpot charges.
Something of that sort might be a rule here. It might be a regula-
tion of the Board. It might be incorporated in here under certain
regulations that the Board might publish or adopt, or you might
write them into the act, but I certainly would have that in mind as a
protective move to do away with the crowding of your docket.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Denham, 1 invite your attention now, if you please,
to the language appearing on page 2 of S. 1606 in lines 11 and 12 par-
ticularly, which read as follows :
* * * the Board shall investigate such charge and if it has reason to be-
lieve that allegations therein contained are meritorious, it shall issue and cause
to be served * * * do you have any observations or comments to make on
that language?
Mr. Denham. The word "meritorious" is, I think, one that could
be improved upon.
What you are actually intending to say is that, if the Board has
reason to believe that in substance the allegations as contained in the
charge are true and provable, it shall issue and cause to be served, a
complaint, etc. In other words, it may have reasons to believe that
the allegations are true, but still not have reason to believe that it can
prove them, and in that event any action would probably be purpose-
less.
I think that you will find that the use of unequivocal language in a
matter of this sort, particularly is highly essential. The Communist
mind and the minds of two or three other classes of persons who come
afoul of regulatory language are addicted to the use of semantics in
everything they say and do, particularly when they are trying to give
an obscure or double meaning to a piece of legislation.
For that reason, in anything that I have had occasion to write, I
have tried to put it in unequivocal language, that is capable of but
one meaning, and which will cover as much as possible of the question
that might be raised. I would suggest that some language similar
to what I have just suggested be substituted for that word "meritori-
ous."
Mr. Arens. Now, may I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to
any other items in this particular bill, or any other bill of this charac-
ter pending before the committee, on which you would like to com-
ment ?
Mr. Denham. On page 2 in line 6, and again on page 3 in line 17,
we find the use of the words "who have consistently aided, supported,
or in any manner contributed to."
Again you find a word there which might be manhandled and mis-
handled in the use of the term "consistently." It does not occur to
me right at the moment what other term could be used that would
more clearly set out what is intended there.
Mr. Arens. In other words, your thought there is that some Com-
munist-controlled organization could point to one deviation from the
norm of its conduct which would break the "consistency?"
Mr. Denham. That is correct ; yes, sir.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 101
My impression is that that is another place where you will find a
possible hole being poked, in the thing. Now, the principle that is
involved here is an excellent one, and I want to just think out loud, if
I may, for a moment, concerning the effect of a suspension order, be-
ginning on line 25 at page 2, going through the top 4 lines of page 3.
* * * order providing that such labor organization shall be ineligible to
act as exclusive bargaining agent or to become, or to continue to be, the recipient
of any procedural or substantive benefit under or by virtue of the Labor-Man-
agement Relations Act of 1947, as amended.
Now, it is very clear to me what we are driving at there, but again,
if you should by chance run into the thing which we have been con-
fronted with in the National Labor Relations Board for quite a
number of years up until the last 6 months or so — and that is the
propensity on the part of the Board and its staff or those who really
do the work for the Board members, to avoid exactly the thing that
this suspension order provides for, or something of that same nature,
not necessarily in connection with communism — and you run into a
new word of that sort, you might find that this language would be
again subverted.
What you are driving at, as I see it, is to provide that such labor
organization shall not be eligible to institute, either by itself or
through anyone acting on its behalf, as a front or as a disclosed or
undisclosed representative, any proceedings before the National Labor
Relations Board, and the National Labor Relations Board shall not
have jurisdiction to entertain any such effort to institute proceedings
of any character. That is one point.
And, in the event that such an organization has been certified by
the Board as a bargaining agent, the effect of such certification shall
be suspended.
Mr. Arens. Could I ask you a question right there ?
Mr. Denham. May I just add one thing?
Mr. Arens. I beg your pardon.
Mr. Denham. And that if, in any event, such organization has been
recognized by an employer without certification by the Board, none
of the provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act imposing
obligations upon the employer shall be applicable as between the
employer and the designated union or any of its members or repre-
sentatives.
Mr. Arens. Could there be a possible problem here, Mr. Denham,
along this line ?
Here would be a labor organization that was Communist-controlled
named the XYZ labor organization.
Tomorrow it is served with this intermedial suspension order. The
next day it changes its name from the XYZ to the ABC organization,
and goes right on.
Should there, in your judgment, be some language here which would
preclude change of name or which would identify ?
Mr. Denham. In the specific law, with reference to making it
applicable?
Mr. Arens. Predecessor or successor.
Mr. Denham. Predecessor or successor to that organization. I am
pointing out things where you are liable to run into decisional prob-
lems in connection with the interpretation of the application of this
102 SUBVERSIVE ESTFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
thing, which we have seen paralleled in the interpretation of the
National Labor Relations Act.
I have not had an opportunity to investigate section 13 (c), (d) (1)
and (2), (e), and (f), of the Subversive Activities Control Act of
1950, as amended, to determine the limitations, if any, or the defini-
tions, if any, of the method of proceeding with the hearings that are
provided for.
Now, we have the Administrative Procedure Act, which un-
doubtedly would come into play in any such hearings, and you may
want to take into consideration the extent, if any, to which you may
want to deviate from some of the phases of the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act.
The Administrative Procedure Act provides that the hearings must
be held before a qualified trial examiner, and that the established rules
of procedure and evidence, as far as practical, will be followed.
It sets up a lot of the rules of procedure that are designed to protect
the public in connection with the proceedings of our various ad-
sentation cases.
On the other hand, there are certain exceptions that are especially
provided for in, I think, section 5 of that act. You may want to
study the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act to these
hearings, and the question of whether, and to what extent you want
to loosen up the conduct of those hearings, by giving the Board or its
examiner, a greater degree of liberty in his conduct of the hearings.
As a matter of fact, there are several exceptions that are written
into the Administrative Procedure Act which, for instance, make it
possible for a hearing to be conducted before someone other than a
qualified trial examiner.
That is true in the Labor Board again, with reference to repre-
sentation cases.
Now, at times, it has been rather embarrassing to everyone that that
exception is in there because, in connection with representation cases,
you can get into some mighty hot, knockdown and drag-out legal
battles, and to have a case heard before somebody who is inept and does
not know the rules of evidence and does not know procedure and prob-
ably is not even an attorney, as frequently happens, results in a record
that, when it gets down to the courts, is poorly made ; and, unfortu-
nately, when they do that, the Board says "We are not going over
any of that any more, we have already litigated it in the very informal
hearing in the representation case.
That is the extreme of the thing that can happen when any ad-
ministrative body is excepted from the provisions of the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act.
On the other hand, there are a lot of things where it probably can
be excepted. But in these cases you are going to run into a great
program of obstructive tactics. You are going to have a bad time
when these hearings are held, at best, and I think it would be smart
to take a look at all of the rules of due process, and see that they are
observed.
However, I do not think that you should go all out on some of these
things, so that they could take advantage and keep you in court for
the rest of jouv life.
(Discussion off the record.)
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 103
Mr. Arens. Please put on the record now very concisely, what you
have just said.
Mr. Deniiam. You have just asked about the question of a charge
being filed against local X which is a part of district 49 or 60 or some
other district of an international, which district is in turn part of the
international organization, and where investigation shows that local
X definitely is Communist-dominated, but in your investigation of
that thing, and your verification of the charge, you may find that this
communistic domination runs up into the operations of the district
and then you may find that it even goes up into the operations of the
international in some regard.
When your charge is limited just to local X, you may find yourself
embarrassed if you attempt to proceed against the district, of which
local X is a part, or against the international, unless the person who
files the charge should file an amended charge, based upon the infor-
mation that has been subsequently turned up.
In other words, in my opinion, you might run into a great deal of
difficulty if you attempt to bring any prosecution or any regulatory
limitations against an organization that had not been charged with
irregularities.
(Further discussion off the record.)
Mr. Arens. Mr. Denham, do you. feel that the legislation on this
subject might deal with the situation where a Communist-dominated
labor organization would, after its suspension, purge itself of its Com-
munist affiliations and influences, and then come in and seek to be re-
instated, given certification?
_Mr. Denham. "Well, I think you almost have to make some pro-
vision for the organizations against whom proceedings are taken, to
purge themselves, using a great deal of care to see that the purging is
real and not just on the surface ; for instance, making very sure that
the persons who were in the picture and gave rise to the prosecution
in the first instance are now definitely and completely out of it and
that they are not hidden down in the rank and file crowd.
It is difficult to justify continuing a life sentence on a union for
something that can be and has been corrected that the pardon should
be most sparingly used.
I think that you could only do that, however, as a result of probably
another hearing. I would be very slow to do it, on the basis of some
certification by the members of the union or officers of the union. I
would want to do some investigating and make dead sure that that
is a fact because, if this procedure that is contemplated by this bill
is worth having at all, it is worth prosecuting right down to the en-
tire bitter end, not letting these folks who are very much inclined,
if they are Communist-influenced, make things seem to be what they
are not. They have little, if any compunction about lying.
Mr. Arens. Do you have any suggestions to make with reference
to a situation wherein there would be several Communists within a
labor organization in sensitive areas, but where they were not of
sufficient strength in the organization to substantially— and I em-
phasize the word "substantially" — direct the organization within the
purview of this proposed legislation ? How would you suggest deal-
ing with them ?
104 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Denham. I think I would deal with the outfit exactly the
same way as has been pointed out, because they are not there unless
they want to be there and have a reason for being tliere.
Mr. Arens. The bill, as presently drafted, as I construe it, deals
only with the situation where the labor organization is substantially —
and I again emphasize the word "substantially'' — dominated by in-
dividuals who are Communists.
Mr. Denham, Knowing the training and discipline of the Com-
munists, if you have persons who are really and truly party members,
or who are informed fellow travelers — and those fellows are as much
under discipline as the members, in a somewhat dilferent manner —
if you have those people within an organization, they are there for
the purpose of spreading their own little gospel.
Mr. Arens. Or espionage, or any of these subversive activities.
Mr. Denham. Any one of a number of things that might happen,
and in these daj^s when in any labor union we have activities that to
some extent impinge on our defense operations, or to some degree ex-
tend into classified activities, I think it is just dangerous to allow any
Communist the freedom of fraternizing with people of this sort
under the bonds of the so-called brotherhood of labor organizations.
Mr. Arens. Have you given any thought to legislation other than
that legislation which currently is in the Internal Security Act and
the proposed bills here, which would undertake to drive out of labor
organizations individual Communists, as distinct from trying to
cope with the situation where there is a Communist domination?
Mr. Denham. I have done a good deal of study and a good deal of
work in connection with the possible revision of the Taft-Hartly Act.
I have expressed my opinion with reference to the handling of that
act a number of times publicly, and before some of the committees.
I have a feeling that there are too many Commies, or Communist
sympathizers, or fellow-travelers who are under cover in the staff
of the National Labor Relations Board.
Many of them are in positions where they cannot be disturbed by
the officers of the Board who may very definitely want to get rid of
them.
I have advocated that they repeal the old Taft-Hartley Act and
enact another law which parallels it, which will permit the President
to make a fresh start with a staff that is not in bad repute. Such a staff
undoubtedly would include many of the present stafi", but the question-
able ones could be eliminated in that process. Then, in connection
with the cases where you have union shops, so that the union is in
a position to impose some regulations, permit the employer at the re-
quest of the union, to make his own investigation of the union's record
and charges and so forth, and discharge preemptorily any employee
whom the union charges and the employer finds and has reason to
believe is a Communist or a supporter of the Communist doctrines.
That is all set out in a revision of that act which I think you have.
It is a rather voluminous thing.
Mr. Arens. At the present time, under the present law, in certain
circumstances, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to dis-
charge a Communist because he is a Communist. Is that not correct?
Mr. Denham. If he discharges him at the instance of the union
just because he is a Communist, there is a question. But I would be
'SXTBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 105
pretty willing to defend an employer who did that, on the grounds
of public policy.
I think technically you could say that the charge that that was
an unfair labor practice, that he was discharged at the request of
the union for other than nonpayment of dues, et cetera
Mr. Arens. If an employer at the present time refuses to bargain
with a labor organization which has been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board but which he, the employer, knows is Com-
munist-controlled and dominated, that is an unfair labor practice.
Mr. Denham. The Board has held that that is an unfair labor prac-
tice, and I think has been supported by some courts, in connection with
that.
Mr. Arens. In your judgment, would that situation necessitate
legislation to correct it, in addition to the legislation that is proposed
in these bills ?
Mr. Denham. I think that is one of the places where the Taft-
Hartley Act should be shored up, and some reinforcement given to
it, and it could be done. There is language that would permit it to
be done. I would say that it would be very desirable.
Just exactly what that language would be, I do not know ofTliand,
but I have just finished writing a contract for one of our clients, in
which we reserved the right to discriminate against an applicant for
employment where he is a native of, or his country or origin, is one
of the Communist countries. That is how far I feel I am entitled to
protect my client.
Of course, refusing to bargain is another matter. That, I think,
is up to the Board, and when the Board has issued certification, unless
there is some very good reason that is a dependable one, the employer
is under an obligation to bargain. There is no place in the act where
it justifies an employer refusing to bargain with a union because it has
some members that he does not like.
Mr. Arens. Mr, Denham, in order to further explore all possible
avenues of approach to this serious problem, what is your thinking
with respect to a provision of the law which would preclude the letting
of any Government contracts, particularly defense contracts, to a
contractor who would in turn contract with a labor organization which
is found to be controlled by Communists ?
Mr. Denham. I would even go further. I think that that is a pro-
vision that belongs in S. 1606. We may legislate against their certi-
fication by the Board. We may deprive them of the authority of the
Board to regulate them. We may even deprive them of the right to
insist upon the rights of a recognized union that has not even come
before the Board. But that is not going to stop employers who have
been doing business with some of them over the years from continuing
to do so, and continuing to recognize them and do business with them
and let them and their members participate in the production of de-
fense material that may go right into the classified area all along the
line.
It is not impossible, although it is extremely difficult, for an em-
ployee to get a Q-clearance that will put him into classified work, but
I just do not think that a man who cannot get a Q-clearance should
be allowed to be even working under the same roof, even though a
partition separates him from a fellow who is on classified work.
106 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
I might say that if you are going to ostracize unions that are the
subject of Communist influences and dominations from the Labor
Board, you certainly, it would seem to me, would not only be justified,
but almost have the duty to ostracize them from being permitted to
have their members engage in Government defense work, or Govern-
ment work at all.
You have your Walsh-Healy Act.
I would even go one step further and put a provision here that would
prohibit a union which has been designated as in suspension from strik-
ing, for instance, for recognition, or using any other economic means
of forcing an employer to do business with it.
This thing has so many ramifications, that before you get through
you have covered a lot of territory.
Mr. Arens. We want to cover as many of these ramifications with
you as possible, because of your boundless experience in this area.
Mr. Denham. This thing of the Government contracts, I think,
belongs in there, and I should make it applicable to unions that are
in suspended status while you are conducting your hearings.
As sure as God made little apples, your Board is not going to run
its hearings and get through with them in 2 days. It is probably going
to take 6 months, and a lot of damage can be done under a Government
contract where these fellows are allowed to be in.
We have clients in our office doing classified work, and just the
thought of having Communists on their grounds as cleanup men, to
me, is quite obnoxious.
Mr. Arens. Have you given thought, Mr. Denham, to exploring still
another avenue of approach to this problem?
Mr. Denham. May I interrupt?
I am having most of my thought right now because I have not had
an opportunity to sit down and analyze this thing as you have here, and
I have not had occasion to do it as I shall, now that we have had this
session.
Mr. Arens. We will appreciate your cooperation very much. What
would be your thinking with respect to a provision which would em-
power an agency of the Government, on the basis of confidential in-
formation from security reports, to cause action to be taken to dis-
charge from sensitive employment persons engaged pursuant to a Gov-
ernment contract who are found to be security risks ?
Mr, Denham. It is being done right now.
Mr. Arens. Administratively?
Mr. Denham. Yes, sir.
For instance, the various sensitive agencies, when they come down,
will say to the contractor, "You get rid of Joe Doakes. He is a se-
curity risk," and they get rid of him. That is the end of it.
Mr. Arens. Why is it that we just came back a few weeks ago from
the Pittsburgh area, where we discovered numerous hardcore Commu-
nists engaged in plants which were under contract with the Federal
Government making defense equipment?
Mr. Denham. Somebody just has not been on the ball.
Senator Butler. Mr. Denham, we will suspend at this time, with
the profound hope that in the course of the next several days we will be
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 107
able to resume this testimony on the basis of further study and con-
sideration of some of these ideas which we have exchanged here, both
off and on the record.
We thank you very much for your appearance today.
Mr. Denham. I shall be glad to do whatever I can.
Senator Butler. The committee is in recess.
(Whereupon, at 12:55 p. m., the committee recessed, pursuant to
call of the chairman.)
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS
FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1954
United States Senate,
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administra-
tion OF the Internal Security Act and Other
Internal Security Laws, of the Committee
ON THE Judiciary,
Washington^ D. G.
EXECUTIVE session
The task force of the subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m.,
in room 341, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler presiding.
Present: Senator Butler.
Also present : Richard Arens, special counsel ; and Frank W. Schroe-
der and Edward R. Duffy, professional staff members.
Senator Butler. Will you hold up your right hand ? In the pres-
ence of Almighty God, do you solemnly promise and declare that the
evidence that you give to the task force of the Internal Security Sub-
committee of the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ?
Mr. Frank. I do.
TESTIMONY OF NELSON FEANK, LABOR COLUMNIST, NEW YOEK
WORLD-TELEGRAM AND SUN, NEW YORK CITY
Mr. Arens. Will you kindly identify yourself by name, residence,
and occupation?
Mr. Frank. My name is Nelson Frank. I am a labor columnist
for the New York World-Telegram and Sun, 125 Barclay Street, New
York City.
Mr. Arens. Will you give us a brief thumbnail sketch of your back-
ground insofar as it relates to the field of labor ?
Mr. Frank. I have been a labor columnist since 1949 on the World
Telegram and for 5 years before that I was doing general reporting,
mostly labor. Previously I worked with the naval intelligence on
the Communist desk and Communist unions were one of my fields of
activity, so that I picked up quite a bit of information during that
time.
Mr. Arens. During the course of 3'our experience as labor editor
for the New York World-Telegram and Sun, have you had occasion
to accpiire information and to keep yourself currently posted on the
109
43903—54 8
110 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
situation with reference to Communist penetration and control of
various labor organizations?
Mr. Frank. That is right. I have sort of made a specialty of Com-
munists and Communists in unions particularly.
Mr. Arens. And you have kept current on that ?
Mr. Frank, I have kept current on that as far as I could.
Mr. Arens. May I therefore, Mr. Chairman, respectfully invite
the attention of Mr, Frank to each of several labor organizations and
ask him to give us a rundown on the situation so far as Communist
penetration is concerned on the basis of his exp)erience, background,
and information ?
Senator Butler. Yes, indeed. Proceed.
Mr. Arens. May I first invite your attention, Mr. Frank, to the
United Electrical Workers and ask you if you would first identify
the organization and then tell us the extent of Comnumist penetra-
tion and control of UE and the power of UE in the labor field ?
Mr. Frank. I will try to keep it brief, but the United Electrical
Workers was originally formed through a merger of several different
union groups, one of the principal ones being the Metal Workers In-
dustrial Union, which was a Communist, and openly Communist,
union that had existed in the early 1930's, Out of that organization
came James Matles, who has always been considered the brains of
UE. He is presently under court action for denaturalization of citi-
zenship on the ground that he was a Communist when he first became
a citizen in 1984.
The UE was almost from its inception Communist controlled, al-
though it always had a considerable non-Communist bloc, and its orig-
inal president, James B. Carey, was never a Communist, although in
the early days he went along on a number of front organizations.
However, when he began opposing them seriously, the Communists in
the UE had enough power to immediately remove him as president
even though he was at that time, as he is today, the Secretary of the
national CIO.
UE has consistently followed the Communist line to whatever ex-
tent possible and ultimately was expelled from the CIO at the Cleve-
land convention of the CIO in November of 1949.
Mr. Arens. Who are the top leaders of UE at the present time?
Mr. Frank. There are three top leaders of whom Matles with the
title of director of organization is probably the principal one; Julius
Emspack of Schenectady, who has been identified before a number of
congressional committees as a member of the Communist Party, as has
Matles, is the secretary-treasurer; and the president of the union is a
man from Lynn, Mass., named Albert Fitzgerald, who has always
gone along with the others, although the general feeling used to be
that he was not actually a member of the party.
Mr. Arens. Kindly tell us, if you please, the extent of the Com-
munist control of UE and the number of persons in UE who would
be influenced or subject to Communist direction, wittingly or unwit-
tingly.
Mr. Frank. Let me say this: In 1949 UE claimed 600,000 mem-
bers, although it probably only had around 450,000 at the most. In
the years since then Carey has set up the International Union of
Electrical Workers, CIO, and has done a fairly successful job of raid-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 111
ing the UE, so it is doubtful if UE now has bargaining rights for over
200,000. The UE actual Communist membershi]:) would probaJjly be
very small. It would probably be in the hundreds or perhaps a thou-
sand at the outside. However, anybody of any importance in the or-
ganization would be either a party member or completely amenable
to the party, so that the organization has been completely Communist
controlled, has remained completely Communist controlled.
Mr. Arens. Where does UE have its strength geographically in the
United States and in what industries?
Mr. Frank. The principal strength is in the small electrical shops
now, I believe, but it still has the key General Electric plant in
Schenectady with some fifteen to twenty thousand workers, depend-
ing upon the conditions. It has a few shops in Westinghouse, but
mainly it has small plants or small shops around the country where
the UE representative will know all the workers and where through
his personal contact he can keep them from breaking ott' and going
over to the CIO.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, may we cover substantially the same ground
with reference next to the mine-mill labor organization? If you tell
us a word about its background, a word about the officers, a word
about its control and strength of membership, and so forth, we would
appreciate it.
Mr. Frank. I cannot tell you too much. The mine-mill originally
was one of the older American unions under the name of the Western
Federation of Miners. It grew up under CIO to a membership alleg-
edly of around 100,000. It is a key, as UE is a key in some of the elec-
tronics fields, in some of the principal zinc and copper mines of the
country.
Mr. Arens. What is the top leadership of mine-mill?
Mr. Frank. The principal Communist leader there is a man who
I believe is still secretary-treasurer, Maurice Travis. Its president I
think is Clark. I don't know too much about his political association.
Originally when it was at its strength in CIO its president was a man
named Reid Robinson, who was vice president of CIO and who every-
body assumed was a secret member of the Communist Party, but after
he got cited as having attempted to borrow some money from one of
the employers he had to drop down to a lower position in the organ-
ization.
Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, the same type of rundown on
the fur and leather workers.
Mr. Frank. The fur and leather workers is a merger of Communist
unions, the Fur Workers Industrial Union, which was headed by Ben
Gold and most of the people who now head the fur and leather work-
ers, and the A. F. of L. fur union, which merged about 1936 to form
the current leather workers, Ben Gold, the president of the union,
was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party and
was openly admitted to be the only Communist who did not deny his
membership when the CIO had a considerable number of Communists
on its executive board.
Mr. A.RENS. What is the fur and leather workers' status ?
Mr, Frank. That is a peculiar organization. In New York City
in the fur industry they are in a very bad way with probably only a
few thousand people employed out of a possible 12,000 or 15,000 who
112 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
might normally be employed. In fact, conditions are so bad that they
had to reduce the pension payments to their retiring members, which
was an nnnsual thing in union activity.
However, they have been successful throughout much of the rest of
the country in controlling a large part of the leather industry and also
they are in a very broad field. They have trappers in all the camps
and outlying parts of the United States who are members of their
union.
Mr. Arens. I do not believe I made myself clear. What is its
status ? Is it an independent ?
Mr. Frank. Yes. The fur workers like the mine-mill and UE were
expelled from the CIO. The union was expelled in 1950 as mine-mill
and UE had been expelled in 1949. There was a brief period during
which the fur workers announced that it had disaffiliated from the
CIO, but that was in anticipation of CIO's expulsion, which came a
couple of weeks later. It is unaffiliated rather than independent, I
might say.
Mr. Arens. Did you give us the names of the top leadership of
the fur workers ?
Mr. Frank. Well, Ben Gold is the president. The secretary-
treasurer is a kindly Italian man who was originally with the A. F.
of L, organization and who apparently keeps his mouth shut and
goes along with Gold, although no one accused him of being Com-
munist. His name is Pietro Lucci. The union has a whole series of
vice presidents. One of them is Irving Potash, who is currently in
Leavenworth Prison as one of the Communists convicted in the first
Smith Act trial.
Another vice president is Leon Strauss, who is always in the fore-
front of whatever Communist front is functioning in New York and
is one of the leaders of the veteran group of left-wingers in New
York. He was recently the chairman of an anti-McCarthy rally that
was held in New York, Senator Joseph McCarthy. He is the sort of
person who is always pushed forward whenever any Communist activ-
ity has to be done by the union that they do not want Mr. Gold to
be involved in.
By the way, Mr. Gold is presently under indictment for perjury in
connection with signing his Taft-Hartley affidavit of noncommunism.
Mr. Arens. Where was that indictment found ?
Mr. Frank. In the southern district of New York.
Mr. Arens. This meeting you are talking about which was pre-
sided over by Mr. Strauss was a meeting at which there was kind of
a mock trial of Senator McCarthy?
]Mr. Frank. That is right. It was an alleged trial of Senator Mc-
Carthy where a number of people got up and allegedly made accusa-
tions against him, accusing him of responsibility for practically any
anti-Communist activity that practically anybody else had done. One
of the witnesses at that trial which Strauss presided over was Julius
Emspack of the UE.
Mr. Arens. We are now enumerating the leadership of the fur and
leather workers. Would you continue, please?
Mr. Frank. They have other officials: Jack Schneider, who is up
for deportation and manages to get off and on of Ellis Island pretty
regularly. In general no one has ever had any doubt about their
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 113
being a Communist- controlled union and they themselves never en-
tered the general denials that most did.
Mr. Arens. At this mock trial up there Abram Flaxer was also
one of the
Mr. Frank. He was listed as being one of the speakers and I be-
lieve he spoke also.
Mr. Arens. Would you identify Abram Flaxer?
Mr. Frank. Flaxer has never been listed as resigning the i^resi-
dency of something called the United Public Workers.
Mr. Arens. What is his status with the law as of the moment?
Mr. Frank. He is under sentence, I believe, for contempt of your
committee for having refused to present records of his organization's
membership, and presumably also as a result of your activity his or-
ganization seems to have been dissolved, which is one way of getting
rid of communism.
Mr. Arens. Will you kindly go on and give us more of the leader-
ship of the fur and leather workers unless you have already covered
them ?
Mr. Frank. I would say just one other thing, and that is that Ben
Gold when he was going to sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit publicly
announced that he had resigned from the Communist Party so that
he could sign this, but that he would continue to believe all the things
that he had believed while a Communist, and a check of his record
would show that he not only believed but continued the same activi-
ties thereafter, publicly at least, that he had always done as an open
member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Arens. Let's be sure we have covered in broad outline the ma-
terial with reference to the Fur and Leather Workers. We have had
the record now reflecting the leadership and the fact that it was ex-
pelled from the CIO. Would you give us now, if you please, your
best estimate as to the membership of the Fur and Leather Workers ?
Mr. Frank. I would say that it probably has around 60,000 or
70,000 members. These things are always difficult because not in-
frequently they will get bargaining rights for a broader group than
they actually have membership, but including the leather groups, its
principal strength these days, I would say it is around 70,000.
Mr. Arens. Where is the concentration of strength ?
Mr. Frank. Of course, the headquarters of the organization and the
political concentration is in New York City. For the rest, it is all
around the country, wherever there are leather shops. I don't know
the leather industry too well.
Mr. Arens. To your knowledge do they have any contracts with
the Government in defense work, say, such as UE has, that is, com-
panies for which UE works?
Mr. Frank. I would imagine if any leather jackets are being made
for pilots or if any type of leather suits are being made for jet use
that probably people from the fur industry are working on them.
Mr. Arens. Is there any other comment in general on the Fur and
Leather Workers? We are trying here to lay the broad picture.
Mr. Frank. Just one other thing. They have recently concentrated
on organizing a group of fishermen who would seemingly be entirely
outside of their jurisdiction except that the fish they bring in is the
type that is used for making oil which is used sometimes in tanning
leather.
114 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. Where is that project developing?
Mr. Frank. I believe it is in Delaware, along the coast of Delaware.
In addition to Delaware there are parts of Maryland where they come
in and where the fish are processed for future use. This group of
largely Negro workers were never organized before the fur workers
concentrated on them and it would be very interesting to know how
many of them ultimately would be considered for future use for
espionage purposes. It is probably very valuable to the Soviet Gov-
ernment to have people along the coast.
Mr. Duffy. What influence does the Fur and Leather Workers
Union have over the shoe workers?
Mr. Frank. They have no influence over the shoe workers at all.
It is a completely different group.
Mr. Arens. ^lay I invite your attention, if we have completed in
broad sketch the fur and leather workers, to the American Communi-
cations Association. Kindly identify the organization and give us the
leadership of it, the status of it, and information respecting its func-
tioning and activities, membership, and the like.
Mr. Frank. The ACA, as it is known as, is an outgrowth of a group
known as the American Kadio Telegraphists Association, which was
headed by a man named Merwyn Rathborne, who has since testified
on the west coast that he was a Connnunist while he was in the or-
ganization. He testified, I believe, against Harry Bridges in Bridges'
perjury trial out there. For some years now it has been headed by a
man named Joseph Selly, and Selly has refused on numerous occasions
to answer whether he is a Connnunist or a member of the party, and
so, too, has the secretary-treasurer of the union, Joseph Kehoe, who
was brought in when the union succeeded in easing out its previous
secretary-treasury, w^ho had been active in a lot of Communist fronts^
but apparently wasn't considered completely reliable.
The organization has deteriorated — it never amounted to a great
deal — to a considerable degree, in spite of which it still has contracts
with some 15 key communications organizations.
Mr. Arens. It was expelled by the CIO ?
Mr. Frank. That is right. It was also expelled by the CIO in 1950,
as all of these were, on the ground that it was Communist-dominated.
Mr. Arens. It was also cited by the Internal Security Subcom-
mittee a couple of j^ears ago.
Mr. Frank. That is right. You did a very fine job there.
There is a very interesting thing about the ACA. I doubt if it
has over 10,000 members remaining in it and about 5,000 or a little
better are employed in the New York area in the Western Union Co.,
and the only way it got them was that about in 1946 there was a
petition before the National Labor Relations Board calling for the
determination of bargaining rights between the ACA and the respect-
able and patriotic, I might say, A. F. of L. Commercial Telegraphers
Union. Tlie Labor Board at that time, for reasons best known to
itself, decided to cut the country up into 7 areas, 1 area of which
consisted of New York and part of New Jersey where the ACA was
certain to win, and the rest of which was cut up into other parts of
the country where the commercial telegraphers would win.
Mr. Arens. Do you think that is kind of gerrymandering in favor
of the Communist union ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 115
Mr. Frank. It was a practice that the Board did not, I believe,
ordinarily follow. The practice of the Board normally was to make
an overall bargaining unit, but in this particular instance it divided
the whole — after all, this was just one company, the Western Union
Telegraph Co. — they divided the company up into seven regions, I
believe they called them, and the result was that in this one region,
which obviously ACA would have control of since everybody knew
that they were there at that time, it made it possible for them to retain
control of New York.
There liave been a number of elections in which, generally speaking,
around one-third to 40 percent or better of the workers in Western
Union have voted against ACA, but because of the fact that the
messengers vote equally with the key telegraphers and the key me-
chanics— and the ACA strength is supposed to be among the lower
£aid woikers tliere — they have managed to retain control in the
abor Board elections.
Mr. Arens. ACA still services the tie-lines and lease lines com-
ing out of the Pentagon, does it not ?
Mr. Frank. I believe that is right. I know also that they service
the Newfoundland landing of the Atlantic cable.
Mr. Arens. Let's get that again. Wliat is the Newfoundland land-
ing of the Atlantic cable ?
Mr. Frank. Where the Atlantic cable touches the North American
Continent, and I believe from there on there are relays from that
point to other parts of the North American Continent from four
cables. ACA handles those relays at that point and elsewhere into
New York, in and around New York. They also handle E,CA com-
munications and a number of others.
Mr. Arens, Mackay ?
Mr. Frank. I believe so.
Mr. Arens. We have had testimony — and see if you liave any basis
to give us information on this — that the ACA people have a device
called a monitoring device that they plug in and can listen to the
messages on the lines which they service. Is that correct?
Mr. Frank. I don't know about that. It sounds reasonable, but I
am not familiar with that.
Mr. Arens, What is the soiutc of your information that the ACA
Communist-controlled organization services the North Atlantic cable?
Mr. Frank. I am frequently called by members of the opposition
at the World Telegram office of the various unions and they will give
me information and I have carried stories about it. If I had thought
of it I could have brought clip]iings of them. As a matter of fact,
I can submit photostats, if you like, for inclusion in this record as to
what is some of the work that they do. One of tlie men who had been
fighting the Communists in ACA for years called to tell me about
this cable thing.
Senator Butler. I think it would be well to have those clippings
and it will be ordered that they be inserted in the record as a part of
the record.
Mr. Arens. What relationship does the ACA Communist-con-
trolled labor organization have with people who operate radios on
the ships at sea ?
Mr. Frank. None at this time. Originally those people on a num-
ber of the ships — the A. F. of L. had a considerable group — the larger
116 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
group originaly were part of ACA, but tliey broke off and formed
the American Radio Association, which is a CIO organization, and
in fact the president of that organization — his name is Steinberg,
but I cannot think of his first name — was the person who instituted
the charges in the CIO against these Communist unions.
Since he has the smallest union the CIO wanted to make these
j)eople look as bad as possible, and Steinberg brought the charges
against the unions on the basis of which CIO expelled them.
Mr. Arens. What connection — I want the record to reflect this
accurately — does your ACA labor organization, Communist-con-
trolled, have with the messages coming out of the Pentagon right
now while you are talking ?
Mr. Frank. I have heard it is considerable, but I am not familiar
with that.
Mr. Arens. They service the tie lines and lease lines out of the
Pentagon, do they not ?
Mr. Frank. I believe that it is those principally coming into New
York City, which is one of the main centers from where they go all
around the country. I know that they also have something on the
west coast and they also have things going into Hawaii, I know.
Mr. Arens. The ACA Communist labor organization services the
private tie lines and lease lines coming right now from the Pentagon
in through New York and on out overseas on the east coast; is that
not correct?
Mr. Frank. I believe that is correct, sir.
Mr. Arens. And in the process of servicing the lines the persons
under discipline of the ACA have access to the actual language that
is coming out from the Pentagon right now ?
Mr. Frank. That would be correct.
Mr. Arens. Could you tell us, if you please, whether or not ACA
is presently certified by the National Labor Relations Board as a
bargaining agency?
]Mr. Frank. Oh, yes. The Board goes to great trouble to hold
elections between ACA and the Coimnercial Telegraphers every year.
They have held 1 each year for the last 2 years at least in New York
City for Western Union. This is in spite of the fact that both Mr.
Selly and Mr. Kehoe, and the attorney for the union, Victor Rabino-
witz, have all refused to answer questions about being members of the
Communist Party and also several of them about association with
espionage activity.
Mr. Arens. You indicated that the ACA was losing some strength
in the course of the last few years. It has, has it not, recently won
an election overwhelmingly in New York City ?
Mr. Frank. Not in any new field that I know of.
Mr. Arens. In the Western Union.
Mr. Frank. In the Western Union case, which it held in New
York City and I believe Newark, which it had had for some years
previous, it again won an election to retain bargaining rights there.
1 might say also in most of the places they have either a union shop
or an agency agreement which permits the employer to deduct union
dues from anyone who doesn't want to join the union.
A contract was just signed in one of the RCA groups whereby
those who want to get out of the vmion are permitted to do that, but
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 117
they must pay union dues. They must pay the equivalent of union
dues, and some of them hated the union so and disliked being asso-
ciated with the union which was so openly Communist that they were
delighted. They considered this an improvement, to permit them
to get out of the union.
Mr. Arens. Let me get this clear for the record. Let me restate it
and see if I have interpreted your thoughts correctly here. Is it your
testimony that a person who is presently a member of this Communist-
controlled union, if he decides tomorrow morning that he doesn't
want to be a member of any organization controlled by the Com-
munists, nevertheless is obliged because of some contract to pay reg-
ular dues to that Communist-controlled organization before he can
earn his daily bread?
Mr, Fkank. That is right, and he must continue in the union, as
a matter of fact, except that in one of the contracts for a brief period
they were permitted to drop out of the union, but they still had to
pay the equivalent of union dues to the organization in order to re-
main on the job. That, by the way, is not an unusual labor practice.
It comes with particular ill grace in connection with a Communist
organization.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, may I invite your attention to the Inter-
national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and ask you
to cover it in about the same outline form which we have been dealing
with here on these other Communist-controlled labor organizations?
Mr. Frank. This is the organization that is headed by Harry
Bridges.
Mr. Arens. And who is Harry Bridges?
Mr. Frank. Bridges is an Australian-born longshoreman who
originally was in Joe Ryan's International Longshoremen's Associa-
tion, but split off from that to form this group in the early days of
the CIO. He was, along with his union, expelled from the CIO be-
cause it was Communist dominated in 1950 and he has since absorbed
at least 1 and possibly 2 other groups that were expelled from the
CIO.
Mr. Arens. When was the Bridges' union expelled?
Mr. Frank. They were expelled, I believe, in the summer of 1950
and with them at that time there was a union called, I believe, the
Pacific Fishermen's Union headed by a man named Jurich, and this
was expelled from the CIO, but had in the meantime been absorbed
into Bridges' union. He has most recently been in the process of
absorbing" the workers, some several thousand, on the west coast
who are members of another union that was expelled from the CIO,
the Marine Cooks and Stewards Union, headed byone Hugh Bryson.
Bryson, incidentally, is up on charges of perjury in connection
with filing his non-Communist affidavit,
Mr. Arens. Wlio else in the Longshoremen's Union is a Communist
besides Bridges?
Mr. Frank. I don't know the west coast situation well enough.
I believe one of his officers named Robertson was convicted with him
originally for perjury, a case which was thrown out on the basis of
the statute of limitations having run, but Bridges' union has been
and is completely Communist dominated and everyone has always
taken for granted that it was.
118 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. Do you know anything about the strength of Bridges'
union in Hawaii ?
Mr. Frank. It is supposed to be very strong there, but I don't know
anything about it.
Mr. Arens. Do you know anything about the aggregate member-
ship of Bridges' hibor organization ?
Mr. Fr^vNK. He used to chiim around 100,000. It is my guess he
may liave as many as 50,000, inchiding warehousemen. There are
several important locals of men working in warehouses who were
allegedly anti-Communist and who on occasion used to come out with
votes against the desires of Bridges, but nevertheless always sup-
port him when the chips are down and go along wdth him and havo
remained with him.
Mr. Ar.ENS. May I invite your attention to the Marine Cooks and
Stewards Union? You alluded to it, but I think we might give it
separate consideration.
Mr. Frank. That is a craft union. It is only the cooks on the ships
that sail the west coast. On the east coast the CIO National Mari-
time Union, wdiich is a good solid anti-Communist union, takes in
both the cooks and the deck and the engineer personnel, but on the
west coast things are different, and there is one union for the deck
personnel and another union for the engine personnel, plus a third,
this Communist union, for the cooks, and this union has been under
considerable pressure from both the A. F. of L. Sailors' Union of the
Pacific and for a brief period from the National Maritime Union
more recently.
With the indictment of Bryson they have been very worried, and
the Labor Board, for some reason which is unknown, has bothered
them a little on the west coast. The result is that the marine cooks
have apparently all been signing authorization cards for Bridges'
union to represent them in any election, so that the situation is such
that it is obscure in my mind wdiether the marine cooks is actually in
existence still or whether it is partially in existence and partially
within Bridges' union as a means of having Bridges protect them.
They numbered a few thousand members. A union cannot exist nor-
mally with that few members. It takes more to run a union than the
dues from several thousand members would normally bring in, so by
getting into a larger union it would be able to function where it
wouldn't otherwise.
Senator Butler. I have to go to the floor, and I would like to ask
one question before I go. This is more or less out of order. What I
would like to know is this : In your experience have you ever seen any
liaison, connection, link, or association among these Communist unions
looking toward the formation of a third labor organization or any
other cohesive group ?
Mr. Frank. There was just one so far as anybody knew, just one
meeting in New York City, where they got together with various
representatives and had some sort of a discussion, but apparently
everybody was afraid of everybody else, even though they were all
interested in working with the Communists. They were also inter-
ested in protecting their jobs, apparently.
Senator Butler. When was that meeting?
Mr. Schroeder. October 7, 1961, Senator.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 119
Senator Butlek. As far as you know, there have been no other
efforts to make this a cohesive group ?
Mr. Frank, In general I think that they have preferred not to.
Thej^ have been sort of afraid of it for several reasons : One, because
they are afraid that the larger unions might try to absorb some of the
smaller ones, but also because of the fact that they would then be
tapped openly as a Communist federation.
Senator Butler. Do they have to your knowledge any liaison, or do
they work together under cover ?
Mr. Frank. Some of them do; yes. In certain places one will help
another, and it is not unusual to have representatives from the differ-
ent ones sliowing up at the same Communist front, as, for example,
this anti -McCarthy meeting where there was supposed to have been a
representative from AC A there, though I don't know who that was,
and from UE, and from fur. This is the sort of thing that goes on.
Senator Butler. In other words, to promote the Communist line
wherever they can do it without attracting too much attention or with-
out jeopardizing their own position there is cohesion and they do work
together toward a connnon objective?
]\Ir. Frank. That is right. Also I am sure someone in the Com.-
munist Party, whoever the labor representative today be, more or less
tries to direct their activity. For example, a number of the Com-
munist unions have been calling for dealings with Red China, cojn-
mercial dealings — Bridges' union, for example.
Senator Butler. We had that on the west coast. Harry Bridrres
wound up his testimony out thereby parroting the Commie line tJ)at
we must now start to resume trade with Red China.
Mr. Arens. May I invite your attention to the Dining Car Workers'
Union ?
Mr. Frank. I am afraid that most of what I know about that I
know from you people, except that I have talked to some of the people
from the A. F. of L. Hotel and Restaurant Workers' Union who liave
given me a few things about that, but you had a hearing on that, and
you know the score, and I think that your record show^s the degree to
which that is Communist controlled much better than I know.
I have had very little to do with that. The only thing is, after
jour hearing, in which the attorney for that union — a man named, I
believe, Archibald Bromsen — refused to answer about his Communist
associations, I was called on the phone by someone who told me that
he was the attorney for the local A. F. of L. teamsters in New York
City. I believe it was the bank guards' local who drove these armored
cars, the armored car local. That is what was.
So I wrote a story quoting what you had said about Bromsen, and
the A. F. of L. fired him immediately, and he was very indignant about
it, and he tried to explain to them that it was all a big mistake, but
lie stayed fired.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, we have thus far been discussing the na-
tional Communist-controlled labor organizations. May I invite your
attention to the DPOWA and ask you for j'^our comments ?
Mr. Frank. That is the Distributive, Processing, and Office Workers
of America, which was CIO and even to this day has not officially
been listed as having been dropped by CIO. This union was formed
by a merger of two of the unions expelled from the CIO, the United
120 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Office and Professional Workers Union, which had been headed by a
man named James Diirkin, and a merger of the Food, Agricultural,
and Allied Workers, which was headed by a man named Donald Hen-
derson, and a third group in New York City, the Distributive Workers,
which were composed of a number of locals that had split off from
the CIO in 1948.
Within the past few years there has been a series of shakeups in
that organization, with the first result that they got rid of Durkin,
and he ended up working in some shop for the first time in many years ;
and subsequently they got rid of Henderson; and at least a year and
a half ago the last of the people that I knew to be still sympathetic
with the Communists who had worked for Durkin was dropped, and
the organization at that time was under attack in the Daily Worker
and was attacking the Daily Worker in reply to a degree.
It has been my considered judgment, after having talked to the
union's president, Arthur Osman, and others of the officers, that, al-
though they once were Communists, they have broken with the party.
As always happens when anybody breaks with the party, a degree of
poison remains in the system, and it is a question of how far they get
away from the party and how anti-Communist they become and how
soon. I think that Osman perhaps has gone further away from the
party than some of the otliers, but I don't think that any of them are
in the party now or are subservient to the party.
This is with one single exception.
Mr. Arens. How about the locals ?
Mr. Frank. That is what I am coming to. There is one local in
New York City of about 6,000 members. It is called local 1199, the
retail drug clerks' local. It is headed by a man named Leon Davis;
and, although Davis has apparently kept his mouth shut and voted
along with Osman and the others in the statements that they have
made attacking Communists, which they had to make in order to get
into the CIO early last year, Davis is nevertheless apparently still
aliened with the Communists.
One thing more than anything else that indicates this to me is the
fact that when Osman finally fired his last Conmiunist employee—
as far as I know of, at least — a man named Moe Foner, who I be-
lieve was an education director in Osman's union, Davis immediately
liired him, and he is working for Davis to this day.
Mr. Arens. In what organization ?
Mr. Frank. In this retail clerks' local, the drug clerks' local ; and,
in addition, an opposition member of the union has called me and
told me that the union voted to send money to Harry Bridges with-
in the past year, something that Osman would not have done, at this
point at least; and also I hear other stories within that local.
It is always quite a problem when a union eitlier breaks with the
Communists or either when it is completely non-Communist to be-
gin with, what to do about a local that is leftwing because in New
York State at least, and perhaps in some of the other States, the courts
usually uphold the right of the local to con^plete freedom if the in-
ternational tries to step in or the national union tries to step in and
take over.
No one likes to lose members, and particularly in this instance where
the DPOW has possibly 50,000 or 60,000. This local represents at
least 10 percent of the membership.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 121
Mr. Duffy. Is Davis presently on the executive committee of dis-
trict 65?
Mr. Frank. Yes, I believe he is one of the members of the execu-
tive board. I believe he even has the title of vice president. I know
that at the last convention which the DPO had some time last year an
attack on this local was read by one of the speakers. It was not a
political ground, but over the refusal of this local to join the overall
pension fund which, the charge was made, would make it possible to
aid some of the poorer locals of the organization, but it was an un-
usual thing for the organization to attack the local. That did occur
at that time.
Now, as for these people, I have talked to Osman on a number of
occasions, and the others, and also I think that I am something of
an authority on the question of breaking with Communists, and I
feel that they have definitely broken, although, as I say, to my mind I
would like to see them go further and come out against the party
more solidly than they have. They have definitely attacked the party.
They have definitely said things which no Communist can say and re-
main with them.
As a matter of fact, I attended one of their conventions 2 years ago
at which a statement of disavowal of communism was read by the
union secretary-treasurer, David Livingston, and I remember that the
Daily Worker reporter at that time looked very glum after the thing
was read.
I have made it a practice whenever I find that anybody or any union
is on the verge of splitting with the Communists I will go to them
and try to offer help to them in any way I can and to get their side
of the story in. I did that with Joseph Curran in the National Mari-
time Union, which had been completely Communist-controlled until
the fight began, with Michael Quill of the Transport Workers' Union,
with Morris Pizer and others in the United Furniture Workers, and
other groups.
Mr. Arens. May I invite your attention to another national labor
organization which has, so we understand, been in the throes of a
purge of Communists, the United Furniture Workers, and ask you
Avhat information you have on that group ?
Mr. Frank. The United Furniture Workers was a completely Com-
munist-controlled union up until 1950. Its president had resigned
several years before in protest on the ground that the Communists
were running the union and anything that the Communists did the
furniture workers could be depended upon to go along with them.
In 1950 when the CIO prepared to expel the other unions, or actu-
ally in 1949 at the CIO convention, charges were preferred against
the furniture workers. At that time, so I learned, Jacob Potofsky,
the president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, sought out
Morris Pizer, president of the furniture workers, and offered to give
him financial assistance in organizing furniture workers if he would
break with the Communists and stay with CIO.
Pizer had a long record of having been both in and out of the
party, I believe, according to others who knew the score, and after
talking it over with several other people who had been alined with
the Communists, Pizer started to battle them in 1950.
The principal Communist spokesman in the union at that time was
the union secretary-treasurer, a man named Max Perlow, who had
122 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
been the first person who openl}' admitted that he was resignino- from
the Connniinist Part}^ so that lie could sign a Taft-Hartley non-Com-
mnnist affidavit. In the light in which Mr. Pizer, with considerable
assistance from heads of two locals in New York, Jack Hochstadt and
Michael De Cicco, they ultimately took the matter to the convention
that year in June of 1950 and defeated not only Perlow. but all of the
other board memb.n-s, who I belieA'e at that time constituted a ma-
jority, the Communist board members, that is, the union has been
basically anti-Communist since then.
There were at that time I believe at least three locals which had
been Connnunist which remained Communist. One of them in Los
Angeles ultimately split off. This was headed by a man named Gus
Brown. In New York City, Local 140, which is headed by three
people, Sol Tishler, president; Alex Sirota, manager; and Barney
Minter, business agent, is apparently still Commvuiist-controlled, and
Pizer for reasons best known to himself has never bothered to inter-
vene, although in 1952 when re]:)resentatives of this local were supposed
to be involved in the May Day parade, if I remember correctly, the in-
ternational intervened and disavowed any such action.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, before getting into locals — and I want to
get into that shortly — may I ask you now : Are there any other
national labor organizations which are Communist-controlled, out-
and-out Communist-con.trolled ?
Mr. Frank. Out-and-out Communist-controlled. I can thiidi of no
international union which is. However, a considerable ]^oi'tion of
strength nationally is held by the Comnuinists in the ClO's United
Packing House Workers.
Mr, Arens. I want to get into that type of labor organization in a
little while, but before we leave the internationals may I ask you if
you have had occasion to compute the approximate money take by
these Communist international labor organizations in the United
States ?
Mr. Frank. It would be a very hard thing to pin down exactly.
Mr. Arens. "What is you best estimate?
Mr. Frank. I would say, allowing for approximately half a mil-
lion members in these Communist unions, and assuming that they take
an average of $2.50 a month in dues, that it would be roughly a million
and a quarter dollars in dues each montli that these organizations have.
Then, in addition to that, there would be other money coming in
froili welfare funds which, while it might not be touched exactly for
iiefarious purposes, nevertheless could provide jobs for people who
were needed by the party.
jNIr. Arens. You mean jobs for people to administer the funds the
party would control ?
Mr. Frank. Not necessarily jobs to administer the funds, but they
could be put on the payroll with the title of administrator and actually
do other work, outside work. I think that there are a number of
unions .where that sort of thing allegedly occurred, where the party
would assign somebody to Avork for the union, but actually the person
would be doing outside work most of the time, if not all of the time.
Mr. Sciiroeder. Paid agents for the Communist Party?
Mr, Frank. That is right, in a way of subsidizing party j^eople.
]Mr. Arens. May we direct attention, if you please, Mr. Frank, to
the Communist-controlled local labor organizations which I would
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 123
describe as organizations either affiliated with an international which
is not necessarily Communist, or an unaffiliated Communist-controlled
labor organization which is not international or national in scope ?
Mr. Frank. This gets to be a verj' broad order because all sorts of
unions are apt to have 1 local or 1 or 2 locals lost in the big shuffle
of the number of locals that the international would have.
Mr. Arens. You mean lost to the Communists?
Mr. Frank. No; which might be just lost as far as the interna-
tional is concerned. They might be completely unaware of the thing,
and the Communists might have control.
For example, the A. F. of L. Painters' Union for some peculiar
reason always seems to have a lot of locals that will line up for various
Communist viewpoints. By reading the Daily Worker one can get an
occasional line on what happens, and you will suddenly find that in
Seattle a local will do something, or in Los Angeles, or in Missouri, in
the most out-of-the-way places that one may not have ever heard of.
Mr. Arens. You say they may do something. What do you mean
by that?
Mr. Frank. For example, call for the repeal of the Smith Act.
Mr. Arens. To follow the Connnie line is what you mean?
Mr. Frank. That is right, call for repeal of bills which are obnox-
ious to the Communists, so it is hard to actually say that any particular
union has absolutely no Communists in it.
In New York City, for example, we have the International Ladies'
Garment Workers; A. F. of L., which at one time had a considerable
Communist contingent and even today in one of its locals, which is
headed by a militant anti-Communist, where the Communists can still
get around 3,000 votes for their candidate.
Of course, in that union David Dubinsky, the president of that
union, brags that he has Communists in the union but that he uses
their dues to fight the Communists, which is a different sort of ap-
proach than the Communists enjoy.
However, the principal place that the Communists are supposed
to be strong now is in the CIO's United Packinghouse Workers, which
was under investigation by CIO itself and ultimately was ordered by
Walter Eeuther to clean house after Reuther's secretary-treasurer in
his own auto workers, Emil Mazey, had in effect given them a white-
wash, which the CIO investigation had indicated they did not de-
serve.
Mr. Arens. Identify the packinghouse labor organization : Where is
it ? What is its strength ? Who are its leaders ? What do you know
about it from the standpoint of Communist penetration and control ?
Mr. Frank. The United Packinghouse Workers is headed by Kal]ih
Helstein, who was originally an attorney for the union and gradually
worked his way in to be the president, and its headquarters are in
Chicago where the greatest Communist strength exists.
The representative of the union in New York City, for example, is a
man named Meyer Stern, who at first announced that he was going to
resign his post because he would not sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit
and later kept his post and did sign, and he was always assumed to be a
party member, and there were those who said that they knew him to
be that.
In Chicago it was known that there were several key locals that had
a considerable influence in the organization that were Communist-
124 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
controlled. What happens in an organization like this and what I
have heard expressed is that by having different groups, a gi'oup of
Communists and a group of anti-Communists, it is possible for certain
of the leaders to steer a middle course and manage to retain their con-
trol of the national headquarters.
In any event, the packinghouse workers definitely have a large
Communist contingent and the CIO has done nothing about it outside
of Reuther sending out this letter telling them to clean house, which
they haven't done yet so far as anybody knows.
There are many other peculiar situations where Communists get into
things. In New York City the brewery workers, who were part of
CIO's United Brewery Workers, ultimately split off and went into
the A. F. of L. Teamsters, which is normally a good solid anti-Commu-
nist union, but when these people were called before a congressional
committee three of the people of the brewery workers refused to answer
as to whether they were Communists or anything about their back-
ground. At least the top man there had been listed as having his
name on a Communist petition at one point.
Despite this fact the teamsters have talien no action against them.
There are supposed to be a couple of other Communists doing some
organizing work for the teamsters in New York City.
As I say, no union likes to give up membership and particularly
where the CIO had had these people in for a considerable length of
time and had never done anything about them. I presume the
teamsters felt perfectly justified in taking the same people in and re-
taining them.
There are other locals in New York. There is a local of the A. F. of
L., Jewelry Workers, Local No. 1, which has been Communist for
years, which was always associated with the May Day parades and
with whatever else was around.
Mr. Arens. Is it presently ?
Mr. Frank. It apparently is to this day Communist.
Mr. Arens. What is its affiliation ?
Mr. Frank. It is Local No. 1 of the International Jewelry Workers'
Union, A. F. of L. I have here a copy of one of its recent, in the
past few months, publications called the Jewelry Workers' Bulletin,
and I call your attention to the fact that it is printed by the union,
or bugged, as it is called, No. 412, which is the New Union Press, a
printshop owned by the Communist Party.
There was a time when a considerable amount of literature was
printed for various unions by this printing company, but at this time
it does work almost exclusively for pretty much open Communist-
fronts, and I know of no other union at this moment that is using
this company.
The Communist Party owns a printshop in New York named the
Prompt Press where its main theoretical organ, the monthly maga-
zine Political Affairs, is published and also a number of the party
pamphlets. On the same floor and using, I believe, some of the same
machines is the New Union Press, which is in large part interchange-
able, or was until the A. F. of L. printing union clamped down on
them a while back with the Prompt Press. Both of them are part of
the Communist Party, and for years it used to be very convenient and
very easy to simply look at the union label on a piece of literature to
tell whether it was Communist-printed or not.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 125
Naturally I have not exhausted this subject. I think there are
other locals in other unions around the country that may be Com-
munist-controlled, but I have given you typical examples of the
situation.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, we have, first of all, been discussing here
today what I have called national and you have called international
unions. I mean nationwide labor organizations which are Commu-
nist-controlled. Then we have been discussing local unions which
are Communist-controlled. Now ma,y I ask you what information
you have on the basis of your background and experience respecting
individual Connnunists or Communist cells within non-Communist
or even anti-Communist labor organizations?
Mr. Fit:VNK. In any of the unions that were formerly Communist-
controlled when the Communists were ousted from control they
woidd cei'tainly have a certain degree of power, or membership, or
adherents in the ranks. The only union that I know of that took the
thorough precaution of barring Communists from actual member-
ship, and they did this more on national security grounds than on
union membership grounds, was the National Maritime Union, CIO,
headed by Joe Curran, and this union, which initially first ousted the
Communists and then later amended its constitution to bar Com-
munists from liokling office, then got to the point of barring Com-
munists from membership in the union. In this they were justified
because at that time the Coast Guard barred Communists from sail-
ing on ships and so the union said there was no point in having them
in the union if they couldn't work.
In the other unions that were Communist-controlled where the
Communists have been thrown out, there have always been a few
around who meet regularly and plan probably for ultimate reseizure
of the organization. In the auto workers where the Communists at
one point had some strength, there are still a few of them around.
I think that some of the other unions also must occasionally wonder
what is happening and suddenly discover that there are some Com-
munists they can't locate or that are moving around inside the
organization. '
I think that even among the most conservative of unions it is likely
that Communists may get in and begin working in a cell, and I would
like to call your attention to one local that I have heard about in San
Francisco, a piledrivers' local of the carpenters, which is a good solid
organization for the most part, but where a former vice president of
the National Maritime Union who was an open Conununist Party
member, Blackie Myers, is supposed to be working at this time.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, on the basis of your background and ex-
perience, are you in a position to state for the record here the degree
to which the Kremlin places importance on penetration of labor
organizations by Communists in the overall Communist-conspiracy
program ?
Mr. Frank. Oh, sure. It has always been considered one of the
principal points in Conununist strategy to infiltrate and control trade
unions. In the first place, it gives the party a mass base out of which
to get new members and also it gives, if it is a strategic industry or
even one of some degree of nonsti'ategic value, them values that the
Russians can get out of it.
43903 — 54 9
126 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
For example, the fur workers used to be reportedly much interested
in getting furs purchased from Russia. This of course would be of
economic value to the Russians, and the business people who had good
relations with the Russians were said to have especially good relations
with tlie workers' union.
Mr. Arens. To what extent are the Communist-controlled labor
organizations used for the purpose of undertaking to subvert policy
by the Government ?
Mr. Frank. I would say to the fullest possible extent because a
miion may be of particular value. It is in the hometown of a Con-
gresman or a Senator, and he presumably is interested in having the
good will of these working people, where he may be completely un-
aware of the political situation involved.
Mr. Arens. Have the Communist-controlled labor organizations,
for example, been used in the interest of subverting policy by the Gov-
ernment of the United States with reference to the Far East?
Mr. Frank. Well, most recently a number of the Communist unions
within the past year have been 1 by 1 coming out and calling for
greater trade with Red China saying that this was necessary, that
only by dealing with Red China and the other Iron Curtain countries,
although they would not use that phrase, would American industry be
maintained and could business be retained.
What happens is that sooner or later unconsciously some of the
decent unions may fall for this sort of approach because their interest
may come that way, but initially the desires and the policy of the
Soviet leaders find expression in the unions that are Communist-con-
trolled and even some where there may be only one single Communist.
A man may get up in a meeting or a convention and propose some-
thing that sounds perfectly reasonable to the people who are not
familiar with the situation, and it may go through, and it will sud-
denly find a perfectly legitimate union coming out for a Conununist
policy simply because of one diligent Communist being on the scene.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, could you give us the benefit of your views
respecting the seriousness to the free world of the control by the Krem-
lin of labor organizations worldwide as distinguished from their con-
trol in just the United States, concerning which we have been
speaking ?
Mr. Frank. I think, of course, it is a very btid thing for a foreign
government, particularly a government such as the Soviet Union, to
control any gi'oup inside another country. This becomes particu-
larly dangerous in the matter of an economic organization like the
union which could possibly tie up one whole industry, and it becomes
especially bad where they have control in a mmiber of countries and
could possibly start a series of strikes or other economic action, slow-
downs or sabotage, within a particular industry in a number of coun-
tries.
Mr. Arens. Could you give us a little illustration of what you
have in mind? Let us take, for example, the shipping industry.
What is your thought on that?
Mr. Frank. I could very well see where the Communists would
possibly use Harry Bridges' control of the piers of the west coast
and especially in Hawaii to disrupt communications at the very mo-
ment that they might be doing the same thing in Canada, or in Mexico,
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 127
or ill other parts of the world where they might have the power. We
have a specific example of this in the strikes that the Communists ran
in this country in 1940 and 1941 to disrupt defense production in the
North American Aviation plant and in the AUis-Chalmers plant and
at the very moment like actions were taking place, protests against
the war were going on in England and elsewhere.
Mr. Arens. Then would it be a safe observation to make that this
issue of Communist penetration and control of labor organizations
transcends just the area of labor-management relationships?
Mr. Frank. I think very definitely. It is a matter of national in-
terest. It is a matter of international interest, as a matter of fact,
to the American Government, and I think that the labor aspect of it
is an incidental part. Ab a matter of fact, the workers would be bet-
ter represented in every instance in their economic demands by le-
gitimate non-Communist unions. It would be to the interest of the
country as a whole to have reliable citizens controlling the unions
or directing the unions rather than the people who are subservient
to a foreign power.
Mr. Arens. You have several subissues there, do you not, Mr.
Frank? Let me suggest what is crossing my mind and see if you, on
the basis of your background and experience, would concur. You
have the issue of the possibility of espionage by Communist-con-
trolled labor organizations on behalf of the Kremlin, do you not,
because the workers under the disoipline of the Communist control
of the labor organization could procure vital defense secrets; is that
not correct?
Mr. Frank. That is right. As a matter of fact, you have right here
in Washington a perfect example of that where the former secretary-
treasurer of the union that subsequently became Mr. Flaxer's union
was the recruiting agent for espionage inside the State Department, ac-
cording to testimony that came out in the Alger Hiss case.
One of the witnesses in that case, Julian Wadleigh, testified that
when he finally decided to join the Communist Party he went to
Eleanor Nelson and talked to her about the possibility of joining the
Communist Party. She was then a top official of the CIO union, at
that time called the United Federal Workers, and she advised him
not to join the party and said she would put somebody in touch with
him, and assumed he was an active espionage agent.
Mr. Arens. Then in addition to the possibility, and, indeed, dem-
onstrated certainty, of espionage as a result of Communist control of
labor organizations, you would have also, or there is also, is there not,
the threat of policy subversion which we have discussed ?
Mr. Frank. Yes. Of course, by all means that would go on all the
time. They would use that to whatever extent possible.
Mr. Arens. Then we have also, do we not, the threat of using the
Communist-controlled labor organization to procure funds for the
Communist Partj^ in carrying on other nefarious work?
Mr. Frank. That is right. The unions have always been a source
of funds for the party, for the party press, and so on. As a matter
of fact, people who were elected to posts in the Communist unions
were expected to ante up a certain amount.
Mr. Arens. Then we have also, do we not, the threat of the Com-
munist-controlled labor organization being a springboard for the re-
128 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
cruitment of additional members into the party to do the actual party
work?
Mr. Frank. That is right. Earl Browder one time in testimony
referred to that as "transmission belts" to the party.
Mr. Arens. May we with this background invite your attention to
certain bills which have been introduced into the United States Senate,
one by Senator Butler of Maryland, one by Senator Goldwater of
Arizona, one by Senator McCarran of Nevada, and perhaps others,
attempting each in its own way to deal with certain of these problems,
and ask you what your thinking is with reference to these bills and
the provisions of the bills?
Mr. Frank. I think that by and large they are all to the good. I
think that the more legislation you have, the more means by which
you can hit the Communist, the sooner you will be able to get rid of
him. I think that the Taft-Hartley non-Communist affiidavit ini-
tially w^as a very valuable clause. In fact, it has always been my be-
lief it was largel}^ contributory towards forcing the CIO ultimately
to take action to expel its own Communists because that act automati-
cally divided the CIO into those unions which could without any
trouble sign the non-Communist affidavit and those which woidd have
to worry about being cited for perjury if they did, and that automati-
cally led to a divergence which was not a simple trade union divergence
and I think ultimately contributed largely to the split.
I think, as a matter of fact, that that clause, 9 (h), although I do
not know whether that concerns this subcommittee, of the Taft-
Hartley Act should be maintained and strengthened.
Mr. Arens. How would you suggest strengthening it?
Mr. Frank. Of course, I think that the proposal of President
Eisenhower to add employers is a desirable thing simply as a matter
of politeness to the legitimate anti-Communist unionist, I think that
the law should be amended to read not only that the person is not a
member of the Communist Party, but that his actions are not devoted
to aiding the Communist Party.
The CIO constitution, which was changed at the time the Com-
munists were expelled, said that no person who was a Communist or
whose activities were devoted to assisting or aiding the Communists
should be permitted to hold office, and I think that since it is so often
difficult to pinpoint that a person is in the party, although practically
everybody may know it, but legally it would be difficult to prove, this
is one of the better ways of doing it.
I have proposed before and I still think that an ideal arrangement
and one which would certainly get the Communists away from sign-
ing the affidavit would be to attach to the clause that the signing of
that affidavit shall serve as a waiver of immunity for any questions
that that signer may later be asked on the subject of communism.
I think also you will find that a number of these Communist unions,
who will first sign an affidavit and then refuse to answer on grounds
it will incriminate them under the fifth amendment if they tell
whether they were actually party members when they signed it, are
just making a mockery of that clause of the law at this time, I
think that it would probably be perfectly legal to ask that question, to
also agree to answer any questions in the future on that subject, and
I believe that the Communists themselves would not sign the affidavit
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 129
under these conditions because they would lay themselves open to
much, much embarrassment.
Mr, DuFFT. Do you mean, Mr. Frank, that it would be prudent
to have an immunity statute covering that particular area?
Mr. Frank. No; I see no reason for anybody to give them im-
munity. I think that they have a right to waive their own immunity
if it is optional with them. We have in New York City a law which
states that any person who is employed by the city who refuses to
waive immunity before any grand jury if he is asked to or who re-
fuses to answer any question and stands on his constitutional right
before a legislative committee or otherwise is automatically off the
payroll as a city employee.
The law has been upheld, and we have ousted a number of people
from their jobs that way. It is optional with them. If they want
to keep their job all they have to do is waive their immunity. If
they don't want it there is no compulsion on the part of the city to
keep them on the job.
I think the same thing would apply, the same interpretation the
Supreme Court gave, in upholding the 1) (li) clause in the first place,
that if a person taking oath that he is not a Communist, at the same
time waived his rights to answer any question about commmiistic
activity, immunity, I am sure that it would be perfectly legal.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, assuming for the sake of this question that
the law precluded certification by the National Labor Relations Board
of a Communist-controlled labor organization as a bargaining agent,
would not the Communist-controlled union be free to go right on with
its control of a labor organization and contract with an employer
even though it was not certified by the NLRB ?
Mr. Frank. Yes. Exactly that situation existed at the time the
Taft-Hartley Law went into effect in 1947 and the end of 1949 and
early 1950 when some of these Communists came around and signed
the affidavit. I think, therefore, that the provisions of Senator Gold-
water's bill which bars a union that has been cited as Communist from
collecting dues and so on is all to the good.
My feeling, however, is that what is unfortunate about the proposals
in this bill is that it would take years to get this thing into action.
Mr. Arens. First of all, you would agree that it would be desirable
not to permit certification by the NLRB of a Communist-controlled
labor organization?
Mr. Frank. Definitely ; by all means.
Mr. Arens. Then how would you undertake to meet the secondary
problem of striking at the Communist-controlled labor organization,
which is, for the purpose of this question now, decertified ?
Mr. Frank. I think that the National Labor Relations Board might
be given the power to act as regards Communist unions just as it now
has the power to act against company unions.
Mr. Arens Describe that.
Mr. Frank. Under the present rulings and interpretations which
have been upheld of the NLRB, the Board has the power to hold a
hearing and to find that a certain union in a certain place is a company
union — that is, that it is employer-controlled — and they have a right
to go into court and demand that that union be disbanded. They have
done that in numerous instances, principally in the early days of the
130 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
NLRB, but I think even to this day cases of company domination come
up and unions are ordered disbanded.
I think that that same right could be extended to the Board to deal
with Communist unions. I think that the Board has all the facilities
for finding out whether a union is Communist-dominated and it should
have the power to direct that that union dissolve and disband and cease
trying to function as a union, just as it now does with unions that are
controlled by employers.
I think that some parts of the Goldwater bill might be applied to
make this operate — the Goldwater or the Butler bill.
Mr. Arens. We have covered two points at the moment. One, I
assume from your conversation, is to a degree that the law ought to
preclude certification of a Communist-controlled labor organization.
Mr. Frank. Yes.
Mr. Arens. Secondly, that the NLRB or some other agency of the
Government ought to be in a position to say that the XYZ labor organi-
zation is not a labor organization ; it is in fact a front of some kind
operated by the Communist Party because of its control.
Mr. Frank. That is right.
Mr. Aeens. May I ask you some other questions with respect to the
issues that are before the subcommittee ? What would you do or what
do you think could be done to distinguish between locals which are
Communist-controlled and a national or international that is Com-
munist-controlled? In other words, let me point an illustration for
you, completely hypothetical, and see what you would do about it.
Here is an international labor organization which is Communist-
controlled. It has 16 locals, 2 or 3 of which are strongly anti-Com-
munist. How would you deal with that situation so as to protect the
anti-Communist locals ?
Mr. Frank. I think that the answer to that would be, if a union
was ordered to disband or to cease functioning or to be cited as Com-
munist, as in the case of the Butler bill, I would say that the non-
Communist groups would then have to break away, or perhaps they
could form common cause with the non-Communists who might exist
or who would certainly exist in the Communist-controlled locals, be-
cause there is no 100 percent control in any situation.
Mr. Arens. Let's change the situation around in a contradictory
manner. Let us assume that there is a strong international which is
non-Communist or anti-Communist which has three locals, all of
which are completely controlled by Communists. How would you
strike at that situation by legislation so as not to jeopardize the
security of the international, but at the same time striking at the
locals?
Mr. Frank. I think that someone should have the power to cite
this situation to the international president of the union with the
demand that he take action on pain of losing his own certification,
and I think that once that situation exists he will act. For the most
part presently where you have a situation where a union is non- or
anti-Communist and you merely have individual locals, they are usu-
ally known to the top officer, and he just doesn't want to bother with
them. It is trouble, and these people have always been there, and
they aren't bothering him and maybe even sometimes they will vote
with him on some issues that he will need their votes, but once it
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 131
became to his advantage to get rid of them, to reorganize those locals
to the point of administrators, or it became disadvantageous to have
them there as Communist unions, I think he would take action.
In that respect, I think if it were possible to amend the 9 (h) section
of the Taft-Hartle}^ Act so as to permit well-known anti-Communists
to be excluded from signing the affidavit, you would have a situation
where everyone would be interested in having themselves so cited.
Mr. Arens. May I ask you about still another issue? We are
jumping around on a series of issues which are all germane to this
overall problem. What would you suggest be done, if anything,
legislatively with reference to Government contracts let to a firm
which employs persons in a Communist-controlled labor organiza-
tion or has a contract with a Communist-controlled labor organization ?
Mr. Frank. I don't know that I would do anything because it seems
to me that that is a problem that must be settled at the Labor Board
first. Where you have a corporation like General Electric Co. which
deals with a lot of unions, but whose principal unions are the lUE
under Jimmy Carey, which is anti-Communist, and the UE, which is
Communist, with Matles and Emspack, they are ordered by the Labor
Board to deal with these people.
Mr. Arens. The query in my mind was this : Would it be feasible
and desirable to have a law precluding the letting of a Government
contract to an employer who in turn has a contract or proposes to
have a contract with a Communist-controlled labor organization?
Mr. Frank. Only if some other agency of the Government, that is,
the Labor Board, has not first told that employer that he had to deal
with that union. In other words, you have a situation in Schenectady,
N. y., which is controlled by the Communist UE and where all sorts
of major Government projects may be perhaps going on.
The Labor Board after an election there certifies that local of UE
to General Electric. They have to deal with them under the law.
Now, if at the same time you have another agency of the Govern-
ment coming along and saying — —
Mr. Arens. I was not suggesting that. I was suggesting just from
the standpoint of the overall problem: Would it not be salutary if
the law precluded the letting of a contract by a Government agency
to an employer who in turn would have a contract with a labor organ-
ization which had been found by an agency of the Government, pre-
sumably the NLRB or the Subversive Activities Control Board, to be
a Communist-controlled organization?
Mr. Frank. Yes. In that sense it would be an additional weapon to
stop the Communists and all to the good. I think that certainly the
more ways you have of hitting at them the sooner you are going to
get rid of them. I think that the Butler bill and the Goldwater bill
are all to the good, and what I am unhappy about with them is only
the fact that, having seen what is happening with the Subversive Ac-
tivities Control Board with the Communist I*arty and now with some
of the fronts wliere it is taking years and years first to present the case
and then to appeal it in each instance all the way up to the Supreme
Court, it takes too long.
You would have that same problem with the Communist unions.
In other words, they would still be around for years, whereas I would
like to see them out soon.
132 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. May we direct our attention to still another issue and
see what your thinking is on it, on the basis of your background and
experience ? What thoughts do you have with respect to precluding
by law a Communist-controlled labor organization from having ac-
cess to any defense facility or defense plant ?
Mr. Frank. That also would be all to the good.
Mr, Arens. You know, of course, in the Internal Security Act
there is a provision which prohibits a member of a Communist-action
organization from having access to a defense facility, but as of the
moment the Communist Party itself has not been finally determined
to be a Communist-action organization nor has the Secretary of De-
fense proclaimed a defense facility.
Mr. Frank. For example, on the situation on the west coast, I
might cite this : Where members of the Bridges' union and members
of Bryson's Marine Cooks and Stewards were cited as Communists by
the Coast Guard and barred from going on the piers and therefore
actually from working.
Mr. Arens. Under the Magnuson Act ?
Mr, Frank. That is right. However, the union itself was never so
cited, and therefore the union was permitted to go there, and even
some of its officials who might very easily be Communist, but who
weren't asking for jobs.
Mr. Arens. That brings us to a little refinement, does it not, as
between the workers having access to a plant and tlie union having
access to a plant ?
Mr. Frank. Yes.
Mr. Arens. The Internal Security Act prohibits apparently the
individual worker from being employed in a defense facility. It
does not prohibit the Communist labor representative from going on
the defense establishment.
Mr. Frank. That is right. Of course, what is involved there is
something else, and that is that if you have in a small town a situa-
tion where there is somebody from a Communist union functioning
all the year round and getting to know the people in the union, he will
pick up more information in the evening chatting over a glass of beer
than he will by getting into the plant, because the company will prob-
ably be discreet in what departments it would permit him to get into.
Mr. Arens. TYliat about the Communist shop stewards ?
Mr. Frank. The Communist shop steward, of course, could get into
it, but he would get in only his own department, and his department
might be a restricted one which is making a 3-inch screw or something
of that sort, whereas the union official who is living in the town all
year around gets to know everybody in the community and sitting
around and talking with the people might very easily, and be on the
payroll of the union as a justification for being in the town, might
very easily pick up a lot more information that way,
Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, do you have fui'ther observation with ref-
erence to the provisions of this bill in front of you and these other
bills which are currently pending before the subcommittee?
Mr. Frank. I would suggest that in addition to the Communist
officers being compelled to sign affidavits and having action taken
against them, that staff members also should be directed to sign
affidavits, that is, by the Labor Board or the Subversive Activities
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 133
Control Board or someone else should have the power to direct that
certain people whom they may be suspicious of in an organization —
it may be and it probably would be the editor of the union's paper
or the liead of its research department — be directed to sign.
I would like to suggest, if I may, with all due respect to you, sir,
and the Senator, that the provision in the Butler bill saying that
"Whenever it is charged" and then later a reference to "anyone who
is or ever has been a member of the Communist Party," is much too
sweeping. You have throughout the country some of the best anti-
Communists who ai-e anti-Communist because they were in the party
and they know particularly how bad it is.
I think that you should be most meticulous in trying to avoid en-
dangering their situation, and also I think you could save yourself
a lot of trouble by avoiding their opposition, because they themselves
have to worry about this sort of thing. There are always opposition
people who will say that anybody M^ho ever was a Communist is no
good.
Actually a man like Hedley Stone, who is the treasurer of the
National Maritime Union, is certainly one of the best anti-Communist
trade unionists in this country.
Mr. Aeens. I hope you understand, Mr. Frank, that the bill is only
a first beginning, ancl that is why we are having these hearings, to
modify it, and to polish it, and to perfect it.
Mr. Frank. Yes. I think that 3'ou must be most careful to recog-
nize that a person has broken ancl is doing a competent job because
he is the one man that the Communists are never going to make
progress with again. He has been there and knows the danger. Any-
body else who hasn't been there is at least open to indoctrination, so
I would think that it would be desirable to make a distinction be-
tween unions that as of a certain date, or have a continuing Com-
munist association or Communist trend — I have always felt also that
the Labor Board should be in a position to take judicial notice where
a union is notoriously known as a Communist union and take action
thereon, which it has never done up until the past year when it took
a few minor steps.
Senator Butler. We thank you, Mr. Frank, for your most helpful
and informative testimony. The hearing will now be recessed subject
to the call of the chairman.
Mr. Frank. Thank you, sir, very much.
(Whereupon, at 1 : 25 p. m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene
at the call of the Chair.)
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1954
United States Senate,
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration
OF the Internal Security Act and Other Internal
Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciarf,
Washington^ D. C.
The task force of tlie subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to
call, iu room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler,
chairman of the task force, presiding.
Present : Senator Butler.
Present also : Richard Arens, special counsel ; Frank Schroeder and
Edward Duffy, professional staff members.
Senator Butler. The committee will be in order.
I would like to announce that this is a legislative phase this morn-
ing. Heretofore the internal security phase of the inquiry has been
conducted in executive hearing. This is an open hearing, as you
know, to investigate the legislative phase of the matter.
We have Avith us this morning, representing Mr. Velde, the chair-
man of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of
Representatives, his counsel, Mr. Robert L. Kunzig.
Mr. Kunzig, if you would like to, we would like to have you come
up and sit here to my right.
Will counsel call the first witness?
Mr. Arens. May I respectfully state, Mr. Chairman, that I think
it would be well if the record would reflect the three bills which
are currently pending before this task force of the Internal Security
Committee.
Senator Butler. S. 1606, S. 1254, and S. 23.
(The bills under consideration are as follows:)
[S. 1606, 83d Cong., 1st sess.]
A BILL To amend the Internal Security Act of 1950, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, Tliat the Internal Security Act of 1950, as
amended, be further amended as follows :
By adding to the duties now devolving upon the Subversive Activities Control
Board, created by section 12 (a) thereof, the following :
"Seo. 117. Whenever it is charged that any 'labor organization' as defined in
section 2 (5) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, is
substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by any individual or individuals
(whether officers of such labor organization or not) who are or ever have been
a member or members of the Communist Party or of any Communist-action or-
ganization, or Communist-front organization, as those terms are defined in sec-
135
136 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
tion 3 (3) and (4) of said Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended, or who
have consistently aided, su] "ported, or in any manner contributed to or fur-
thered the activities of such organizations, or of any other 'totalitarian dictator-
ship' as defined in section 3 (15) of said Internal Security Act of 1950. as
amended, the Board shall investigate such charge and if it has reason to helieve
that allegations therein contained are meritorious, it shall issue and cause to
be served on sucli labor organization a complaint stating the charges together
with a notice of hearing before the Board or any examiner thereof stating the
place and time of such hearing which shall be not less than twenty days from
the date of service of such complaint and notice of hearing.
"Simultaneous with the service of such complaint and notice of hearing on
such labor organization, the Subversive Activities Control Board shall cause to
be served on the National Labor Relations Board and the General Counsel thereof
copies of such complaint and notice of hearing together with an intermediate
suspension order providing that such labor organization shall be ineligible to act
as exclusive bargaining agent or to become, or to continue to l»e, the recipient of
any procedural or substantive lienefit under or by virtue of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act of 1947, as amended.
"Sec. lis. Upon the service of such complaint and notice of liearing the Board
(or any member thereof, or any examiner designated thereby) shall be empowered
to hold hearings in accordance with the applicable provisions of section 13 (c),
(d) (1) and (2), (e), and (f) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950,
as amended.
"Sec. 119. If after such hearing the Board shall conclude that such labor or-
ganization is dominated, directed, or controlled by any individual or individuals,
whether officers or not. who are or ever have been a member or members of the
Communist Party, or of any Communist-action organization, or Communist-front
organization, or who have consistently aided, supported, or in any manner con-
tributed to or furthered the activities of such organizations, it shall make perma-
nent the intermediate suspension order provided for in section 117 of the Act,
and shall serve such final order on such labor organization and copies thereof
on the National Labor Relations Board and the General Counsel thereof.
"Sec. 120. The disqualifications of such labor organization provided herein
shall not render void or voidable any collective bargaining contract previously
executed between such labor organization and any employer, insofar as such
contract bestows rights or benefits upon either the employees or the employer :
Avd provided further. That elections to select a successor exclusive bargaining
agent may be directed by the National Labor Relations Board without regard to
the limitation provided by section 9 (e) (2) of the Labor Management Relations
Act of 1947, as amended.
"Sec. 121. Any party aggrieved by the final suspension order of the Bo»rd may
obtain a review of such order by filing in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, within sixty days from the date of service upon
it of i*uch order, a written petition praying that siich order be set aside. A
copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the Board, and thereupon
the Board shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the entire record
in the proceeding, including all evidence taken and the report and order of the
Board. Thereupon the court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and shall
have power to affirm or set aside the order of the Board ; but the court may in
its discretion and upon its own motion transfer any action so commenced to the
United States Court of Appeals for the circuit wherein the petitioner resides.
The findings of the Board as to the facts, if supported by the preponderance of
the evidence, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the court for
leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the
court that such additional evidence is material, the court may order such ad-
ditional evidence to be taken before the Board and to be adduced upon the pro-
ceeding in such manner and upon such terms and coiulitions as to the court may
seem proper. The Board may modify its finding as to the facts, by reason of
the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file such modified or new findings,
which, if supported by the preponderance of the evidence shall be conclusive, and
its recommendations, if any, with respect to action in the matter under con-
sideration.
"If the court shall set aside such final suspension order of the Board, the decree
of the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari,
as provided in title 28, United States Code, section 1254. However, landing
review by the Supreme Court, the final suspension order of the Board shall
retain its full force and effect."
' SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE EST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 137
Exhibit No. Ill
[S. 1254, 83ci Cong-., 1st sess.]
A BILL To establish effective means to determine Communist domination in unions and
to eliminate Communists from positions of influence and control in labor unions
Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assemUed, That certain labor organizations representing
employees employed in industries affecting commerce are led, dominated, influ-
enced, or directed by members of Communist organizations, and, whenever
it will serve the ends of the world Communist movement, it is the purpose of
such leaders to encourage and foment strikes, slowdowns, industrial strife,
and unrest, with the objective of disrupting or obstructing commerce or with
the objective of impairing the security and defense of the United States.
To prevent such disruption and obstruction of commerce and impairment of
the security and defense of the United States, it is hereby declared to be the
public policy of the United States to withdraw and withhold, as hereinafter
provided, from such labor organizations and persons functioning as Communist
labor representatives certain of the advantages, rights, privileges, and immunities
created by laws enacted by Congress with the intention of assisting and protecting
associations of employees which represent employees in dealing with employers
with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or conditions of work, and which assist employees in concerted activity
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection;
and it is further declared to be the public policy of the United States to prevent
any Communist labor representative, as herein defined, from functioning or
acting in any manner as such a collective bargaining representative of employees
employed in industries affecting commerce, or engaged in the performance of
services for, or in the manufacture or assembly of goods or materials to be
delivered to any department or agency of the United States.
Sec. 2. For the purposes of this Act — •
(1) The terms "person," "employer," "representative," "labor organization,"
"commerce," "affecting commerce," and "labor dispute" shall have the same
meaning as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(2) The term "employee," except where used to refer to an individual in
the employ of a labor organization, means any individual employed by any
employer who is engaged in a business or industry affecting commerce or who
is employed by any employer who is engaged in the pertormance of services for,
or the production, manufacture, or delivery of goods or materials to a depart-
ment or agency of the United States Government and includes any such person
whose work has ceased as a consequence of or in connection with any current
labor dispute and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially
equivalent employment.
(3) The terms "Communist-action organization," "Communist-front organiza-
tion," and "Communist organization" shall have the same meaning as defined
in the Internal Security Act of 1950, and the term "world Communist move-
ment" shall mean the world Communist movement as described in and referred
to in section 2 of such Act.
(4) The term "Board" means the Subversive Activities Control Board created
by section 12 of said Internal Security Act of 1950.
(5) Any person who is an officer, or employee of, or who is otherwise influ-
ential in or responsible for the policies of a labor organization shall be deemed
to be a Communist labor representative for purposes of this Act only if there
exist reasonable grounds to believe that —
(a) such person advocates or has aided or supported, financially or other-
wise, the advancement of the economic, international, military, and govern-
mental doctrines, policies, or aims of the world Communist movement, while
knowing or having reason to know that such doctrines, policies, or aims are
tliose of the world Communist movement ;
(b) such person has knowingly aided or supported, financially or other-
wise, any Communist-action organization. Communist-front organization,
Communist foreign government, or any organization listed as subversive
by the Attorney General under the provisions of Executive Order G'SSS
subsequent to the time such organization was so listed ; or
(c) such person has instigated or encouraged or may instigate or encour-
age strikes, slowdowns, or other interruptions of work among employees, for
the purpose of aiding and supporting the world Communist movement or
a Communist foreign government.
138 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
(6) A labor organization shall be deemed to be a Communist labor repre-
sentative for purposes of this Act only if there exist reasonable gi-ounds to believe
that—
(a) it or any parent labor organization with which it is affiliated is oper-
ated or functions in whole or in part as an instrumentality for promoting
or publicizing and advocating the economic international and governmental
doctrines, policies, or aims of the world Communist movement ;
(b) it or any parent labor organization with which it is affiliated is oper-
ated or functions in whole or in part as an instrumentality for giving aid
and support to any Communist foreign government. Communist-action organ-
ization, Communist-front organization or the world Communist movement;
or
(c) any individual found to be a Communist labor representative is an
officer or employee of, or is influential in or responsible for the policies of
such organization, or is an officer or employee of, or is influential in or
responsible for the policies of any parent labor organization with which such
oi^anization is affiliated.
Sec. 3. (a) The Board is empowered, as hereinafter provided, to prevent any
labor organization or individual found to be a Communist labor representative
from functioning as a labor organization or representative of employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, and is fur-
ther empowered to issue orders which shall have the effect of preventing any
such labor organization or individual or employees acting in concert with such
organization or individual from claiming any protection, privilege, or assistance
otherwse afl:orded labor organizations, representatives of employees, and asso-
ciations of employees under certain laws enacted by Congress.
(b) Whenever the Attorney General shall have reason to believe that any
labor organization or individual representing or claiming to represent employees
is a Communist labor representative, he shall file with the Board and cause to
be served upon the persons named therein whom he alleges are Communist labor
representatives, a petition for an order of the Board which will effectuate the
public policy of the United States and purposes of this Act as herein provided.
Each such petition shall be verified under oath and shall contain a statement of
facts upon which the Attorney General relies in support of his petition for the
issuance of such an order. The Attorney General may, in his discretion, join in
a single petition a parent organization and any or all of its affiliated organiza-
tions whether designated as "Locals", "Councils", "Districts", or otherwise, and
any or all of the officers, or employees thereof, and any or all of the persons
influential in, or responsible for the policies of such affiliated organization.
Upon receipt of such petition, the Board shall serve upon the persons named
therein a notice of hearing before the Board or a member thereof, or a designated
agent or agency, at a place therein fixed, not less than five days after the serving
of said notice. The Attorney General shall be permitted to amend his petition
at any time prior to the closing of the hearings held thereon. The labor organi-
zation and the persons named in the petition shall have the right to file an answer
to the original and to any amended petition and to appear in person or otherwise
and give testimony at the place and time fixed in the complaint. In the discretion
of the Board, any other person may be allowed to intervene in the proceeding and
to present testimony. In any such proceeding, the rules of evidence prevailing in
courts of law or equity shall not be controlling.
The Board is specifically empowered to establish and maintain a continuing
panel, called the Labor Panel, to be made up of retired members of the Federal
judiciary who shall volimtarily make themselves available for service upon
such panel at the request of the Chairman of the Board. The Board may then
designate, as its agent for the purpose of conducting any such hearing, a subpanel
consisting of not less than three nor more than five of the members of said Labor
Panel. In appointing any such subpanel, the Board shall clearly state whether
the subpanel shall have full authority to issue a final order on the petition, the
hearing on which it shall be appointed to conduct, or whether such subpanel
shall have power only to make recommendations to the Board upon such peti-
tion Each member of the Labor Panel shall be reimbursed by the Board for
all reasonable traveling and living expenses that shall be necessarily incurred
by him in connection with his services on said Labor Panel and on any subpanel
that may be drawn therefrom. Neither service on said Labor Panel, or any sub-
panel drawn therefrom, nor acceptance of reimbursement for traveling and
living expenses for any such service, shall disqualify any member of said Labor
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 139
Panel from the right to receive any Federal or other pension, retirement, or
disability payment to which he may be entitled.
(c) The testimony talien by any member, agent, or agency designated by the
Board shall be reduced to writing and filed with the Board. Thereafter in its
discretion, the Board upon notice may take further testimony or hear argu-
ment. If, upon the preponderance of the testimony taken, the Board finds that
any labor organization or individual named in the petition is a Communist labor
representative, then the Board shall state its findings of fact and issue and
cause to be served on such person an order which —
(1) if directed to a labor organization, may require that such organiza-
tion shall, within the period of time specified in the order —
(A) dismiss or otherwise permanently remove from influence in.
or from office or employment by the organization, any of its officers
or employees found by the Board to be a Communist labor representa-
tive ;
(B) disaffiliate and sever completely all connections and relations
with any affiliated labor organization found by the Board to be a Com-
munist labor representative ; and
(C) take and carry out to the satisfaction of the Board such other
affirmative action required by the Board which will, in the Board's
opinion, effectuate the public policy of the United States and the pur-
poses of this Act by removing from any position of control or influence
in the labor organization or any organization affiliated with it, the
persons found by the Board to be Communist labor representatives.
(2) if directed to either a labor organization or a person found to be a
Communist labor representative, shall require, but need not be limited to
requiring, that such organization or individual —
(A) shall cease and desist from acting as the representative, spokes-
man, leader, adviser, or agent of employees engaged in any concerted
activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and
protection ;
(B) shall cease and desist from soliciting, or from accepting from
employees, or from their employer, pursuant to the terms of any assign-
ment, check-off, or other agreement, any money or thing of value as
the initiation fees or membership dues of such employees in a laljor
organization ; and
(C) shall cease and desist from instigating, encouraging, or sup-
porting, directly or indirectly, any strike, slowdown, or other interrui>
tion of work among employees.
(d) If within the time specified in an order of the Board, the Board shall
be satisfied that a labor organization subject to such order has fully complied
therewith it shall, upon application of such organization, enter a further order
of the Board staying the elfect of its prior order insofar as such prior order
is applicable to the organization : Provided, That no such order staying the
effect of a prior order shall in any way affect the application of such prior order
to individual persons found by the Board to be Communist labor representatives :
Provided further, That if at any time subsequent to staying its prior order,
the Board shall be of the opinion that the labor organization has ceased to re-
main in compliance with such prior order, it may, upon not less than five days
notice to such organization, reinstate such prior order in full force and effect.
(e) During any time there is in effect and applical>le to any labor organiza-
tion or individual an order of the Board which has not been stayed by the
Board as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the provisions of section 5
of this Act shall be applicable to such organization, to such individual, and to
any employees who act or attempt to act in concert with such organization or
individual.
Sec. 4. (a) Whenever the Attorney General shall allege in his petition that
any labor organization or individual named in a petition filed under the pro-
visions of section .3 of this Act represents or claims to represent employees of
an employer who is engaged in the performance of services for, or the produc-
tion, manufacture, or delivery of goods or materials for any department or agency
of the United States Government and that the interruption of such services or
deliveries may be injurious to the security or defense of the United States,
the Board shall give such petition priority over all other petitions except those
of like nature and shall schedule a hearing thereon before members of the Board
or a subpanel of the Labor Panel. The following provisions, in addition to
the provisions of section 3, shall be applicable to such a petition and hearing.
140 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
(b) The Board shall forthwith notify each labor organization and individual
named in such petition that a hearing, as provided in section 3, shall be held
within not more than ten days. No adjournment or postponement of such
hearing shall be granted except for very gxave cause. The hearing shall be
conducted in as expeditious a way as possible, consistent with appropriate
recognition of the rights of all parties. Where advisable, the Board may order
the continuation of hearing sessions at night and on weel^ends, in the interests
of expedition.
(c) Immediately upon termination of the hearing, the Board shall issue
its decision and order. If the Board shall And that any labor organization or
individual named in the petition is a Communist labor representative, such
order shall be in the same form and contain the same provisions, to the extent
appropriate, as an order issued under section 3 hereof. If within the time
specified in such order, the Board shall be satisfied that any labor organization
subject to such order has fully complied therewith, the Board shall enter an
order staying the effect thereof: FrovidccJ, That no such order staying the
effect of a prior order shall in any way affect an order applicable to individual
officers, employees, or others who are influential in, or responsible for the ix)licies
of snch organization: Providt'd further, That if at any time sub.sequent thereto,
the Board shall be of the opinion that the labor organization has ceai^ed to
remain in compliance with its order, the Board may, with or without advance
notice to the organization, reinstate such order in full force and effect.
Sec. 5. Whenever there is in effect against a labor organization or individual
an order of the Board as provided in section 3 or section 4, such order shall have
the following effect :
(a) For the purposes only of section 7, section 8 (a), and section 9 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, no such organization or individual shall
be deemed a labor organization or representative of employees within the mean-
ing of such Act and no action taken by employees in conjunction with, or pursu-
ant to the leadership of any such organization or individual shall be deemed to
be collective bargaining or concerted activity within the meaning of section 7
of said Act, as amended.
(b) No court of the United States shall find that any controversy concerning
terms or conditions of employment, concerning a collective bargaining agreement
or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment
constitutes, involves or grows out of a "labor dispute" within tlie meaning of the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (Act of March 23. 1932. ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70) if such an or-
ganization or individual is directly or indirectly involved in such controversy.
(c) No such organization and no other organization having as an officer or
employee an individual against whom an order of the Board is in effect shall be
deemed to be a labor organization within the meaning of section 6 of the Clayton
Act (Act of October 15, 1914, ch. 323, 3S Stat. 730) nor shall any of the provisions
of section 20 of said Act be applicable in any case in which any such organization
or individual is interested or involved.
(d) The provisions of section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act,
1947, shall not be applicable to, and no court of the United States shall have
jurisdiction to hear or determine any cause of action brought by such organiza-
tion or individual which —
(1) is brought by the organization or individual as a representative of
employees ; or
(2) is based in whole or in part upon the failure or refusal of any employer
to carry out the terms of a collective bargaining agreement entered into with
such an organization or individual as the agent or representative of em-
ployees: Provided, That nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the jurisdic-
tion of such courts with respect to actions brought by employees who have
disaffiliated from or disassociated themselves from such organization or
individual.
Sec. 0. (a) In determining whether a labor organization is a Communist labor
representative, the Board may consider among other matters —
( 1 ) whether any officers, employees, or others who have been active in its
management or the tuanagement of any parent organization with which it is
affiliated have been active in the management, direction, or supervision of, or
have functioned as representatives of any Communist-action organization,
Communist-front organization. Communist foreign government, or the world
Communist movement, or have been, subsequent to January 1, 1949, members
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 141
of or participants in the activities of the Communist Party of the United
States ;
(2) whether it or any parent organization with which it is aflBliated has
knowingly accepted financial or other support from a Communist-action
organization, Communist-front organization, Communist foreign government
or the world Couuuunist movement;
(3) whether its funds, resources, or personnel, or the funds, resources, or
personnel of any parent organization with which it is affiliated have been
used to advocate, disseminate and publicize or otherwise promote the mili-
tary or international economic or political policies of any Communist-action
organization. Communist-front organization, Communist foreign government,
or the world Communist movement ;
(4) whether tlie positions advocated or supported by it or by any parent
organization with which it is affiliated, particularly with respect to military
or international economic or political matters have, during any substantial
period of time, been identical or substantially identical to positions advo-
cated on like matters by a Communist-action organization, Communist-front
organization. Communist foi'eign government, or the world Communist
movement ; and
(5) whether any oflBcers, employees, or others active in its management,
or officers, employees, or others active in the management of any parent or-
ganization with which it is affiliated, have participated in the activities of^
and supported the programs and policies of, any international labor organi-
zation which regularly adheres to the policies advocated and supported by
the world Communist movement, and whether the organization or any par-
ent organization with which it is affiliated has, since January 1, 1949, spon-
sored or paid for, in whole or in part, the trip of any person or persons to «
country controlled by a Communist foreign government.
(b) In determining whether any person active in the management of a labor
organization or active as a representative of employees for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining is a Communist labor representative, the Board may consider
among other matters —
(1) the extent to which such person has been responsible for formulating,
effectuating, or publicizing the activities, policies, or programs of any labor
organization or parent organization with which it is affiliated which the
Board finds to be a Communist labor representative ;
(2) the extent to which such person has knowingly received financial
assistance from, given financial assistance to, been a member of, or a par-
ticipant in activities of, a Communist-front organization, Communist-action
organization, or the world Communist movement ; and
(3) whether such person has been a member of or a participant in the
activities of the Communist Party of the United States, subsequent to
January 1, 1949, or been a member of or a participant in the activities of any
organization listed as subversive by the Attorney General under Executive
Order 9835, ssubsequent to the time such organization was so listed as
subversive.
Sec. 7. (a) In the perfoi-mance by the Board of its functions under this
Act, the provisions of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 12
of the Internal Security Act of 1950 shall be applicable to the Board. In the
performance of such functions, the Board is athorized to delegate to any group
of three or more members any or all of the powers which it may itself exercise
and two members of any such group shall constitute a quorum thereof.
(b) In addition to its other duties under the Internal Security Act of 1950,
it shall be the duty of the Board, upon petition of the Attorney General under
section 3 or 4 of this Act —
(1) to determine whether any labor organization is a "Communist labor
representative" within the meaning of subsection 6 of section 2 of this Act;
and
(2) to detei*mine whether any individual is a "Communist labor representa-
"tive" within the meaning of subsection 5 of section 2 of this Act.
(c) The Board shall have the authority from time to time to make, amend,
and rescind in the manner prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act such
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
Act.
Sec. 8. (a) Whenever the Attorney General shall have filed with the Board a
petition pursuant to section 3 or 4 of this Act, the Board (or any member thereof
43903 — 54— — 10
142 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
or any examiner or agent designated tliereby) may hold hearings, administer
oaths and affirmations, may examine witnesses and receive evidence at any place
in the United States, and may require by subpena the attendance and testimony
of witnesses and the production of books, paper, correspondence, memoranda, and
other records deemed relevant to the matter under inquiry. Subpenas may be
signed and issued by any member of the Board or any duly authorized examiner.
Subpenas shall be issued on behalf of the organization or the individual who is
a party to the proceedina: upon request and upon a statement or showing of
general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought. Such attend-
ance of witnesses and the production of such documentary evidence may be re-
ceived from any place in the I'nited States at any designated place of hearing.
Witnesses summoned shall be paid the same fees and mileage paid witnesses in
the district courts of the United States. In case of disobedience to a subpena,
the Board may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evi-
dence. Any of the district courts of the United States within the jurisdiction
of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to
oliey a subpena issued to any person, issue an order requiring such i)erson to
appear (and to produce documentary evidence if so ordered) and give evidence
relating to the matter in question : and any failure to obey sur-h order of the
court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any
such case may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is an in-
habitant or wherever he may be found. No person shall be held liable in any
action in any court. State or Federal, for any damages resulting from his pro-
duction of any documentary evidence in any proceeding before the Board if he
is required, by a subpena issued under this subsection, to produce the evidence;
or any statement under oath he makes in answer to a question he is asked while
testifying before the Board in response to a subpena issued under this subsection,
if the statement is pertinent to the question.
(b) No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from pro-
ducing books, records, correspondence, documents, or other evidence in obedience
to the subpena of the Board, on the ground that the testimony or evidence re-
quired of him may tend to incriminate him or sul)ject him to a penalty or a
forfeiture ; but no individual shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or
forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning
which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimina-
tion, to testify or produce evidence, except that such individual so testifying shall
not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for prejury committed in so
testifying.
(c) All hearings conducted under this section shall be public. Each party to
such proceeding shall have the right to present its case with the assistance of
counsel, to offer oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and
to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true dis-
closure of the facts. An accurate stenographic record shall be taken of the testi-
mony of each witness, and a transcript of such testimony shall be filed in the office
of the Board.
(d) Where an organization or individual declines or fails to appear at a hear-
ing accorded to such organization or individual by the Board pursuant to this
section, the Board may, upon evidence adduced by the Attorney General, enter
an order finding such organization or individual to be a Communist labor repre-
sentative. Where in the course of any hearing before the Board or any examiner
thereof, a party or counsel is guilty of misdemeanor, which obstructs the hear-
ing, such party or counsel may be excluded from further participation in the
hearing.
Sec. 9. (a) Any party aggrieved by an order of the Board shall have ten days
following service of such order upon it to file with the Board a notice of its
objection to such order and a demand that the Board petition a court of the United
States for review thereof. Promptly upon the filing with the Board of any such
notice and demand, it shall be the duty of the Board to petition any United States
court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia), or if all the United States courts of appeals to which application
may be made are in vacation, any United States district court (including the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia), within any circuit
or district, respectively, wherein any labor organization or individual found
by the Board to be a Communist labor representative resides or transacts business,
for the enforcement of such order and for appropriate temporary relief or re-
straining order, and shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the entire
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 143
record in the proceedings, including the pleadings and testimony upon which
such order was entered and the findings and order of the Board. Upon such
filing, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person, and
thereupon shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question deter-
mined therein, and shall have power to grant such temporary relief or restraining
order as it deems just and proper, and to make and enter upon the pleadings,
testimony, and proceedings set forth in such transcript a decree enforcing, modi-
fying, and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order
of the Board. No objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member,
agent, or agency, shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect
to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.
The findings of the Board with respect to questions of fact if supported by sub-
stantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive. If
either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence and
shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is mate-
rial and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evi-
dence in the hearing before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, the court
may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Board, its members,
agent, or agency, and to be made a part ol" the transcript. The Board may modify
its findings as to the facts, or make new Ihidings, by reason of additional evidence
so taken and filed, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which findings
with respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the
record considered as a whole shall be conclusive, and shall file its recommenda-
tions, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original order. The juris-
diction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final,
except that the same shall be subject to review by the appropriate United States
court of appeals if application was made to the district court as hereinabove pro-
vided, and by the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or
certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28 of the United States Code.
(b) When granting appropriate temporary relief or a restraining order, or
making and entering a decree enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as so modified,
or setting aside in whole or in part an order of the Board, as provided in this
section, the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity shall not be limited by the
Act entitled "An Act to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the
jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and for other purposes", approved March
23, 1932 (U. S. C, title 29, sees. 101-115).
(c) Petitions filed by the Board under this Act shall be heard expeditiously
and, if possible, within ten days after they have been docketed.
Sec. 10. Any order of the Board issued under section 3 or section 4 of this Act
shall become final —
(a) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing with the Board,
as provided in section 9, a notice of objection and a demand that the Board
petition for review of its order, if no such notice and demand has been duly
filed within such time ;
(b) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for
f-ertiorari, if the order of the Board has been affirmed by a United States
court of appeals, and no petition for certiorari has been duly filed ;
(c) upon the denial of a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Board has
been affirmed or the petition for review dismissed by a United States court
of appeals ; or
(d) upon the expiration of ten days from the date of issuance of the
mandate of the Supreme Court, if such Court directs that the order of the
Board be affirmed.
Sec. 11. (a) Whenever there shall be in effect and applicable to any labor
organization or person a final order of the Board issued under the provisions of
section 3 or section 4 of this Act, it shall be unlawful for such labor organization
or person to —
(1) act as the representative, spokesman, leader, adviser, or agent of em-
ployees engaged in any concerted activity for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid and protection ;
(2) solicit or accept from employees or from their employer, pursuant
to the terms of any assignment, check-off or other agreement, any money
or thing of value as the initiation fees or membership dues of any employees
in a labor organization ; or
(3) instigate, encourage, or support, directly or indirectly, any strike,
s-Iowdown, or other interruption of work among or by employees.
144 SUBVERSIVE ESTFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
(b) Any labor organization which willfully violates any of the provisions of
this section shall be punished for each such offense by a fine of not more than
$10,000.
(c) Any individual who willfully violates any of the provisions of this section
shall be punished for each such offense by a fine of not more than $10,000, or
by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by both such imprisonment
and fine.
(d) For the purposes of this section, each of the offenses enumerated in sub-
sections (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall be considered separate offenses
and each day on which any such offense occurs or is continued shall constitute
a separate offense.
Sec. 12. No findings or order of the Board issued under the provisions of this
Act shall be received in evidence in any criminal proceeding except a proceeding
involving the provisions of section 11 hereof.
Sec. 13. Section 9, subsection (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and the reference to said section 9 (h) contained in section 8 (a) (3) of
said Act, are hereby repealed.
Sec. 14. The National Labor Relations Board is empowered and directed to
take official notice of all hearings and orders of the Board and to adopt such
rules, regulations, and policies as will effectuate the policies of this Act and the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. For this purpose, the National Labor
Relations Board is specifically empowered, notwithstanding the provisions of
section 9 (c) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and notwith-
standing any administrative policy of the National Labor Relations Board, to
direct an election of representatives in any bargaining unit then represented hy
a labor organization or individual against which a proceeding under this Act
has been commenced by the Attorney General : Provided, That there has beeu
filed with the National Labor Relations Board a petition for such an election by
20 per centum or more of the employees in such bargaining unit.
Sec. 15. If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to
any labor organization, person, or circumstance, shall be held invalid, the re-
mainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to labor organizations,
persons, or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall
not be afl:ected thereby.
[S. 2.3, 83cl Cong., 1st sess.]
A BILL To make it unlawful for a member of a Communist orgauizatiou to hold an office-
or employment with any labor organization, and to permit the discharge by employers
of persons who are members of organizations designated as subversive by the Attorney
General of the United States.
Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Rcijrcsentatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of the Subversive Ac-
tivities Control Act of 1950 (Public Law 831, Eighty-first Congress) is amended
by renumbering paragraph (15) as paragraph (16) and inserting after the para-
graph (14) the following new paragraph:
"(15) Labor organizations are at times infiltrated by subversive persons who-
are members of Communist organizations and fronts and whose activities dis-
rupt normal peaceful labor relations and limit or embarrass the choice of loyal
citizens in afliliatiug with loj'al labor organizations."
Sec. 2. Subsection 5 (a) (1) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950,
as enacted in the Internal Security Act of 1950 (Public Law 831, Eighty-first
Congress), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph :
"(E) to hold any office or employment with any labor organization, as that
term is defined in section 2 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended by section 101 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (61
Stat. 137-138)."
Sec. 3. Section 5 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, as enacted
in the Internal Security Act of 19.50 (Public Law 831, Eighty-first Congress) is
amended by adding the following subsection :
"(d) Nothing in this Act or any other statute of the United States shall pre-
clude an employer from discharging without liability an employee who volun-
tarily contiimes as a member of an organization duly designated by the Attorney
General of the United States as subversive, or who has actively concealed his
membership in such an organization, or who has refused to state to a duly
constituted congressional legislative committee whether or not he is or has
knowingly or willingly been a member of such an organization."
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 145
Mr. Arexs. Mr. Chairman, the first witness wlio is scheduled to
appear this morning is Mr. Geor<?e E. Bader, vice president and
works manager of tlie Precision Scientific Co.
Mr. Bader, would you kindly come forward and assume the witness
chair, there ?
Senator Butler. Mr. Bader, do you, in the presence of Almighty
God, solemnly swear that the evidence you give before this task
force of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Com-
mittee of the United States Senate will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth ?
Mr. Bader. I do.
Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and
occupation.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE EDWARD BADER, CHICAGO, ILL., VICE
PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF MANUFACTURING, PRECISION
SCIENTIFIC CO.
Mr. Bader. George Edward Bader, Chicago, 111., vice president in
charge of manufacturing. Precision Scientific Co.
Mr. Arens. ]\Ir. Bader, would you keep your voice up so that the
committee can here you clearly ?
Mr. Bader, Surely.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Bader, you have been scheduled at your request
to appear to testify with reference to the legislation which is cur-
rently pending before this task force of the Internal Security Sub-
committee of the Senate.
Mr. Bader. Yes.
Mr. Arens. And I should like you just to proceed now in your
own way at your own pace to make such comments as you feel are
pertinent to the legislation which is pending.
Mr. Bader. Well, I would like to present the background. I have
been associated with the Precision Scientific Co. since 1950, since
September 1951 as works manager, and more recently as vice president
in charge of the manufacturing of the company.
The Precision Scientific Co. manufactures research and develop-
ment apparatus for use in scientific and technical laboratories. We
supply the Atomic Energy Commission, the Munitions Board, the
Medical Procurement Agency, and other Government agencies, with
apparatus for their research and development laboratories.
Mr. Arens. Do you also supply or produce defense material ?
Mr. Bader. Yes, We developed for the armed services a mobile
petroleum laboratory. It was airborne. This laboratory was made
for the purpose of testing gasolines, greases, oils, and other petroleum
items in the field. There were four of these units used in Korea. They
were for the purpose of testing materials that were captured or con-
fiscated, or for checking to see whether or not our supplies have been
sabotaged.
These mobile laboratories cut down on the length of time that was
required to test these items. Normally, they were sent back to field
laboratories for testing, which sometimes incurred a long delay, in
fact, in instances, so long that when time was not available they would
destroy the supplies rather than take a chance on losing them or using
them to their disadvantage.
146 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. I understand your company had something to do with
the development of the iron lung, which has become so famous in the
course of tlie last few years.
Mr. Bader. Yes, Precision Scientific Co. was a codeveloper of the
orginal iron lung. We also manufactured blood plasma units, War-
burg units which are used in cancer research, ionograph Keller units,
ovens, incubators, autoclaves, and such metal ware as is used in testing
and research laboratories in the metallurgical, biological, petroleum,
and chemical fields.
Mr. Arens. Now, in June of 1953, did you have occasion or did
your company have occasion to have negotiations with the industrial
mobilization and procurement and planning division of the armed
services ?
Mr. Bader. Yes, we were asked to negotiate, and the agency asked
us for a schedule, which we were unable to give them, because of the
circumstances at that time, caused by the unrest in the Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers Union.
Senator Butler. Will you state for the record the percentage of
your manufacturing output that is restricted ?
Mr. Bader. We at present have nothing restricted. We have had
in the past classified materials that were restricted, confidential, and
top secret.
Mr. Arens. Were you able to make commitments with the Govern-
ment for the production of this vital materiel which the armed serv-
ice wanted you to produce ?
Mr. Bader. No, sir, we were not.
Mr. Arens. And why were you not able to do so ?
Mr. Bader. Because of the uncertainty of our relations witli this
labor union.
Mr. Arens. And what labor group is that ?
Mr. Bader. That is the International Union of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers.
Mr. Arens. And is that the same gi'oup which was, about a year
ago, exposed by the Internal Security Subcommittee as a Communist-
dominated labor organization?
Mr. Bader. Yes ; at Salt Lake City, at the Salt Lake City hearings.
Mr. Arens. At the hearings we had in Salt Lake City ?
Mr. Bader. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. When were those? September?
Mr. Bader. October 7 and 8.
Mr. Duffy. 1952.
Mr. Arens. Would you just proceed at your own pace to tell of
the difficulties which you have had or your organization has had with
the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers.
Mr. Bader. Well, when I accepted the responsibility of manufacture
of our items, which was in September 1951, 1 noticed immediately that
I was alarmed at the unrest, and the conditions that seemed to prevail
among the workers.
I was at a loss to explain any reason for that, because they had just
negotiated a contract with this union.
So I thought I would make a study. And during this study, I
found out that the union had been granted everything that they had
asked for. They had been given complete fringe benefits that are
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 147
compatible with this era. And I couldn't understand why we would
have the situation that we did. There was particular unrest. The
arguments that the union would put forth were inane. There was no
basis or foundation for the requests that they were making.
There were such instances as that they would grieve because the
workers didn't get overtime. When we scheduled overtime, they
wouldn't allow the workers to work the overtime that was scheduled.
Senator Butler. Will you tell us for the record how many em-
ployees you have at the plant ?
Mr. Bader. We have approximately 250 in the bargaining unit.
Shall I continue?
Mr. Arens. If you please, sir.
Mr. Bader. There was a time in the negotiations when the union of-
ficials refused to negotiate with the officers of the company, stating
that they would negotiate only with the wives of the officers of the
company — the wives of the officers of the company having no part in
company affairs.
Mr. Arens. Did you have reason to conclude in your own mind that
the disruption caused by Mine, Mill was occasioned by something
other than a deep sincere concern for labor conditions of the mem-
bers?
Mr. Bader. The disruption in working and the arguments put forth
by the union weren't for contractual gains. That is what I couldn't
understand. And until I completed my investigation —
Senator Butler. What type of work were you doing at that time ?
Mr. Bader. At that time I was works manager in charge of manu-
facturing.
Senator Butler. And what type of work was being processed in the
plant?
Mr. Bader. Manufacture of the items such as I have mentioned.
Senator Butler. Any of it secret or restricted ?
Mr. Bader. Some of them were classified.
Senator Butler, Was there a deadline on the production of the
items ?
Mr. Bader. Many of them were under directives.
Senator Butler. Will you explain what you mean by that, that
they were under directives ?
Mr. Bader. They were under directives issued by the National Pro-
duction Authority at the request of the Atomic Energy Commission
and the Munitions Board and the various Government agencies to
complete the Savannah River project and other projects for the AEC.
Mr. Arens. What is your backlog of orders at the present time, un-
fulfilled ordere which you have with the National Production
Authority ?
Mr. Bader. Our entire backlog for the company is well over a
million, and I would say 40 percent of that is to fill Government
orders.
Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Bader, although the Mine, Mill and Smelter
Labor organization has been ejected from CIO because the CIO found,
in effect, that it was Communist controlled, and although Mine, Mill
and Smelter has been repeatedly exposed by congressional committees
as being) a Communist controlled organization, your company is
obliged to bargain with the Mine-Mill under the existing arrange-
ment. Isn't that correct?
148 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Bader, That is true. The National Labor Kelations Board
certified this union, after an election in, I believe, March of 1953.
Mr. Arens. And your company, if it did not bargain with this
Communist controlled labor organization, would be, under the pres-
ent arrangement, guilty of an unfair labor practice?
Mr. Bader. An unfair labor practice. That is true. Wq have that
charge against us.
Mr. Arens. Do you have that charge against you at the present
time ?
Mr. Bader. An unfair labor practice; yes, sir.
Mr. xVrexs. Will you tell us about that, just in your own way in-
formally, please?
Mr. Bader. I would have to go over it very briefly, because it is a
legal matter.
Mr. Arens. I didn't mean to suggest that you get into the legal
technicalities. Just in general, now, what is the situation ?
Mr. Bader. In 1952, in October, the union, INline-Mill, cancelled
their existing contract which had been in efi'ect for over a year. At
the same time another union, the International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, intervened. There was cause for an election. The
NLRB held an election. We objected to the election, the company
did, but the election was run off, and IVIine-Mill won the election.
After due course of time, the XLRB certified the Mine, Mill and
Smelter Union. We wrote to the Board and said we believed that
they were Communist dominated, and we would not recogT.ize them.
Mr. Arens. The NLRB would not certify as a bargaining agency a
company union, Avould it ?
Mr. Bader. A company union? Of that I am not sure. I can't
answer that.
Mr. Arens. I think we might discuss that with the next witness,
who is a technician in this field.
Now, will you just kindly proceed with your problems with United
Mine, Mill and Smelter?
Mr. Bader. All right.
After we refused to bargain witli the union or recognize them as
a certified union, they filed an unfair labor practice. There was a
hearing on that at the time. Our counsel wanted to present evidence
that they were Communist dominated, which he was not allowed
to do.
Mr. Arens. He was not allowed to present that evidence before
the National Labor Relations Board?
Mr. Bader. At the hearing. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. And when was that hearing ?
Mr. Bader. That was in — I am not sure. I would have to check
my records.
Mr. Arens. About when was it ? Last year ?
Mr. Bader. It was in '53 ; yes.
Mr. Arens Proceed, if you please, sir.
Mr. Bader. The case was up before the Board, and there had been
a hearing, and we were waiting for a decision on it. The workers
were still employed, and they worked all during that time, after their
vacation period, which was July 23, 1953. At that time, Mine-Mill
called the workers out, and they struck. They were out for 10 weeks.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 149
Our counsel secured a temporary injunction in the circuit court of
the State of Illinois. On this temporary injunction, the workers then
returned to their jobs.
Mr. Arens. Does your company want to bargain with a Com-
munist-controlled labor organization?
Mr. Bader. No ; we will not bargain with a Communist-controlled
organization, and we will carry it to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Mr. Arens. Now, is there anything else?
Mr. Bader. I believe that that would conclude my observations,
Mr. Arens.
Mr. Arens. Do you have information, Mr. Bader, respecting the
number of working days that were lost because of the interruptions
by the mine-mill people ?
Mr. Bader. Well, there were manj^ hours lost. There were 10,000
hours in 1951. There were around seven or eight hundred hours in
1952. And up until June 1953, there were over 15',000 hours. And
then after June, they had the 10-week strike. So, 10 weeks at ap-
proximately 250 people, eight hours a day, would be the total of the
number of hours lost.
Mr. Arens. And it is your testimony, as I understand it, that all
of the contractual obligations of the company were fully met ?
Mr. Bader. At all times, yes.
Mr. Arens. Is it your feeling that the strike, or the work stoppages,
were deliberate, by this Communist controlled labor organization, for
the purpose of interfering Avith the defense effort ?
Mr. Bader. Yes, I do believe that. I can find no other reason to sup-
port such work stoppages. We filled our part of the contract at
all times. Our contract was very liberal, not only in my mind, but the
average interpretation of it would be that it was very liberal.
Mr. Arens. Now, as a typical businessman, Mr. Bader, with a
typical business organization, small-business organization, producing
for the defense of this great country, do you have any worries or
concerns about the fact that a Communist-controlled labor organiza-
tion has access to your plants and to your blueprints and to your
lathes and to your establishment there, which is producing defense
materiel ?
Mr. Bader. Yes ; I have concern, because such an organization, with
an ulterior motive, that would comply with the, dictates of the Com-
munist Party, Avould not only injure our defense program, with the
Atomic Energy Commission, and all the other Government organiza-
tions, but it would doom to oblivion a company such as ours.
Mr. Arens. Now, you are not coming before this commitee with
any objective to try to bust a union or beat down wages or anything
of that kind, are you ?
Mr. Bader. No, sir ; that is for sure.
Mr. Arens. What is your purpose in coming before this committee,
under the chairmanship of the Senator from Maryland ?
Mr. Bader. Well, principally to try to make the people and the
Government agencies realize w^hat is actually going on and what we
are letting ourselves in for if something isn't done about it and done
very quickly.
Mr. Arens. Is there anything else which you would like to present
to the committee, Mr. Bader?
Mr. Bader. No, sir. I believe that completes my testimony.
150 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Butler. Can you tell me to what extent, if you know, this
slowdown and strike interfered with the completion of these atomic
energy installations that you have referred to in your testimony ?
Mr. Bader. Well, no ; I don't know exactly to what degree. I know
it must have been to a serious degree, because the expediters would
obtain directives, and they would send representatives to our plant to
tell us of the penalties of noncompliance. And when we would ex-
plain to them that it wasn't that yve didn't want to or wouldn't like
to — it was that we were unable to, because of our association with
this union.
Senator Butler. Did any of the representatives of the Govern-
ment of the United States at any time threaten to withdraw the con-
tract from you on account of the Communist influence of this labor
union ?
Mr. Bader. No, sir; they didn't. Maybe, for one reason, we are
the sole manufacturers of these items, and there isn't any place else
they can obtain them except from us. They were necessary for the
defense program, and we were the only ones that could supply them.
Senator Butler. Did you ever discuss that matter with any of the
Government agencies or official of a Government agency?
Mr. Bader. Well, off the record with them, yes. There didn't
seem to be any recourse open to us at the time.
Senator Butler. In other words, had it not been for the fact that
you were the sole producers of these items, this contract would have
been taken away from you and given to some other company that
didn't have a Communist-controlled union?
Mr. Bader. Without a doubt. Without a doubt.
Senator Butt.er. And that is your testimony?
Mr. Bader. Yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. So that this record may be perfectly clear, it is a fact,
is it not, that under the present practice and policy which is in vogue,
you are obliged to contract with the Communist-controlled United
Mine, Mill, and Smelter organization?
Mr. Bader. Yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. And you are obliged to let their men in your plants?
Mr. Bader. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. And you are obliged to let Communists into your
plants?
Mr. Bader. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. And all the force and power and effect of this Govern-
ment of the United States is behind the mine, mill, and smelter organi-
zation to force you to permit them to let their Communists in your
plants ?
Mr. Bader. As things are right now, yes.
Mr. Arens. That is under the present state of affairs.
Mr. Bader. That is under the present state of affairs.
Mr. Arens. Which, in part at least, is attempted to be remedied by
the several bills which are before this subcommittee.
Mr. Bader. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. Is there anything else, Mr. Bader?
Mr. Bader. Not unless there are more questions I can answer.
Mr. Arens. We thank you for your testimony.
Senator Butler. Thank you very much.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 151
Mr. Arens. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Barnabas F. Sears
be invited to assume the witness chair.
Senator Butler. Mr. Sears, in the presence of almighty God, do you
solemnly promise and declare that the evidence you give this task
force of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Com-
mittee of the United States Senate will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Sears. I do.
Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and occu-
pation.
TESTIMONY OF BARNABAS F. SEARS, CHICAGO, ILL., ATTORNEY
FOR PRECISION SCIENTIFIC CO.
Mr. Sears. My name is Barnabas F. Sears. I live at Aurora, 111.
I am a member of the bar of the State of Illinois, with offices at 1
North La Salle Street, Chicago, and I am also a member of the bar
of the Supreme Court of the United States. I appear here on behalf
of the Precision Scientific Co., as their attorney, and I also appear
individually as a citizen.
Now, you heard what Mr. Bader had to say. I should like to add
some facts to some of the facts that he outlined.
I should like to call your attention to the fact that we, as his counsel,
got into the case sometime in October of 1952, at which time there
was pending — I think it was around October — a petition for certifica-
tion under section 9 of the Taft-Hartley Act by local 1031 of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers had been the bargaining agent in
that plant for some 5 years. And my attention was particularly at-
tracted to the case when Mr. Bader brought me a photostatic copy
of a letter that appeared on the bulletin board of the plant, written
by Mr. John Clark, president of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, to
Mr. Edward DeClair, who was shop chairman. That letter I wish
to read in the record. Dated October 20, 1952 :
Deab Brother DeClair: I wish to acknowledge with deep appreciation the
message of support you sent to us in Salt Lake City at the time we appeared be-
fore the McCarran committee.
Our ability to defeat the efforts of McCarran to destroy our union depends
upon the rank and file of our union and expressions such as yours indicate that
we will defeat our enemies.
Sincerely and fraternally yours,
John Clark, President.
It occurred to me as rather unusual that a committee or a sub-
committee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States
Senate could be an enemy of any organized group, and particularly
a labor group.
So we produced transcripts of the hearings before the McCarran
committee, and I want to say that it would have been impossible for
us to have come as far as we have in the legal battle that we have
had with this union were it not for the evidence which was adduced
at that committee hearing.
And I want to take this opportunity of personally thanking that
committee for the very great aid that we received.
152 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Butler. Mr. Sears, at that point, I can assure you that
this task force has only one purpose. We want to get to the facts
of this situation.
Mr. Sears. Yes, sir.
Senator Butler. As the last witness just said under oath before
this task force, he has to bring Communists into his plant to do
Government work of a secret and restricted character. He cannot
discharge those men. He cannot fail to bargain with that union.
If he does, he is in violation of law.
And, on the other hand, if there is anybody else that can do the
work, if he is not the sole producer of the item, the Government will
go so far as to take it away from him and deny him the right to work
on that and keep his company going and put it over into some other
company, where there are not Communists, rather than go to the
root of the trouble and find out how we can get these Communists
out of our plants. And that is the sole purpose of this committee,
to try to get some light on how we can accomplish that purpose. We
are not out to bust any union. All I want to do — any union that
shows good faith and comes out and will clean out the Communists
will have the full support of this Internal Security Subcommittee
and of all the Senators. I am sure of that.
Mr. Sears. I am sure of it also.
Now, in order to really understand the situation, you will have to
understand the problem that we had from a legal standpoint.
Senator Butler. I would like very much to have you put that
problem on this record, so that we can study it and hope to evolve
legislation that will correct this situation.
Mr. Sears. Now, here is what happened. Mine-mill, as I say,
moved and was granted leave to intervene in this section 9 Taft-
Hartley proceeding, which is an investigatory proceeding, for the
purpose of determining a collective bargaining representative. The
hearing officer was sent out. We appeared before the hearing officer.
We objected to the intervention of mine-mill. We objected to mine-
mill being placed upon the ballot. We asked the hearing officer to
take judicial notice of the proceedings before the McCarran com-
mittee and the evidence adduced by that committee.
We called the record's specific attention to Senate Document — I
forget the number. It referred to the expulsion by the CIO after a
public hearing of various Communist-dominated unions, including
mine, mill, and smelter workers union, and he told us in no uncer-
tain terms that that matter was not litigable in that proceeding. And
thereupon he filed his report with the Board, and the Board entered
an order placing mine-mill on the ballot.
Senator Butler. In other words, he held that that testimony was
not relevant to the issue on the certification under section 9 of the
act?
Mr. Sears. That is correct. That is exactly what he held.
Mr. Arens. May I just clear the record here? Was it your con-
tention that mine-mill was not in fact a bona fide labor organization,
but that it was an agency of the Comnumist Party ?
Mr. Sears. Yes, sir. We claimed two things. In the first place,
we claimed that the affidavits they had on file under 9 (h) were false,
and No. 2, that it was not a labor organization within the meaning of
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 153
section 2 (f ) of the Taft-Hartley i^ct, because its policies and direc-
tives were the policies and directives of the Communist Party, and it
was but an agency of that party. That is exactly what we claimed.
Senator Butler. Did you offer to adduce testimony to prove that
charge ?
Mr. Sears. We did, indeed.
Senator Butler. And that process of proof was refused?
Mr. Sears. Correct. And we are still in the section 9 proceeding.
Mr. Arens. Did you show to the Board that, in the hearings by
the McCarran committee when we were out in Salt Lake City about
a year ago, ten of the top officials of the mine-mill outfit were identified
as Communists '?
Mr. Sears. We did not at that time have the actual transcript. But
we later procured the transcript, and with the brief we filed in the 9
proceeding, in objecting to mine-mill being placed on the ballot, we
physically appended to our brief that exhaustive and voluminous
document, being the hearings out in Salt Lake.
Now, mine-mill was placed upon the ballot, and immediately when
the Board ordered mine-mill to be placed on the ballot, then who be-
came tlie subversives? Interesting thing. Immediately mine-mill
started to bulletin the plant and elsewhere, saying that we had made
phony arguments with respect to their communistic affiliations —
within the Board's order putting them on the ballot; that far from
them being subversive, we were subversive, because we were defying
the Goverimient. They carried that election 2 to 1. They beat a
very legitimate patriotic labor union in Chicago, Local Union 1031
of the Electrical Workers, 2 to 1, with that argument that our argu-
ment that they were communistic was phony and the fact that it was
phony was evidenced by the fact that this Government agency, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, permitted their name to be placed
upon the ballot.
We objected to the election, for the same reasons. Those objec-
tions were overruled.
Thereupon, they went before the Board, and they filed a charge
that we had refused to bargain with them. They asked that we bar-
gain with them. We wrote them a letter stating specifically that we
were not going to bargain with them, because they weren't a labor
organization and they hadn't filed truthful affidavits under 9 (h).
The complaint was issued. We went to a hearing. We subpenaed
Morris Travis and John Clark, served a subpena on them out in
Denver. We finally got them in before the Board.
At the hearing before the trial examiner, we made exhaustive and
detailed offers of proof. We not only proved all of the evidence that
was adduced by the McCarran committee, as substantive proof of the
fact ; in fact, we had one of the witnesses testify. One of the witnesses
subpenaed, I should say. But we had Clark and Travis on the stand,
and we took the photostatic copies of the affidavits which they filed
before the Board and asked them whether their signatures were
appended to those affidavits. We were not permitted at that hearing
to ask them any question with respect to that.
Senator Butler. This was before the hearing examiner of the
National Labor Relations Board ?
Mr. Sears. This was before a trial examiner, Senator, in the
adversary proceeding, where due process emerges.
154 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. May I ask this question : Had the coin been turned tho
other way, and had the labor organization, some labor organization,
undertaken to establish that there was a company union which was
dominated by a company, the National Labor Relations Board would
take jurisdiction, and would, if the facts sustain the charge, not certify
an organization which was company dominated, would it not?
Mr. Sears. Yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. In other words, is this the fact : that the National Labor
Relations Board will not certify a labor organization which is domi-
nated by a company as a bona fide labor organization, but that the
National Labor Relations organization will certify a Communist
agency as a labor organization ?
Mr. Sears. Well, of course, that depends upon what they finally
decided in our case.
Now, our case isn't over yet. I mean, we are back here in a section
10 proceeding.
Mr. Arens. That has been their practice, has it not ?
Mr. Sears. That is correct. That has been their practice.
Mr. Arens. That Communist controlled labor organizations,
organizations that had been repeatedly exposed by the Government of
the United States, the congressional committees, as Communist con-
trolled, are certified now by the National Labor Relations Board as
bargaining agencies?
Mr. Sears. Yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. But that company unions are not certified, because
they are controlled by an outside source?
Mr. Sears. Because they are controlled and supported, financially
or otherwise, by the company. You are right. Yes, sir.
Senator Butler. Even though that company and its management
may be perfectly free of all Communist influence ?
Mr. Sears. Yes, sir, and even though that company may be acting
in the interest of those employees. You still can't have a company
union.
Mr. Arens. The theory of the decertification of a company union
is that the union is controlled by an outside source. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Sears. It is controlled by an outside source, specifically the
company.
Mr. Arens. But somehow or other the National Labor Relations
Board, to date, has not adopted that same policy that a Communist
labor organization is controlled by an outside source, to wit, the Com-
munist Party ? Isn't that correct ?
Mr. Sears, Yes, sir. That is right.
Senator Butler. Mr. Sears, you find no fault with the ruling of
the NLRB that a company union should not be recognized ?
Mr. Sears. That is right.
Senator Butler. But, on the other hand, you say if you do not
recognize them because they are a company union, you should not
recognize an organization that is controlled by an outside source that
would be even more detrimental to the company employees than the
company itself.
Mr. Sears. Yes, sir. The difficulty began when the board assumed
to have authority to enact a rule which said they were not going to
litigate the question of compliance with Taft-Hartley; I mean the
question of 9 (h) of Taft-Hartley.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 155
The question of whether a Communist-dominated union is a labor
organization within the meaning of section 2 (f ) of the Taft-Hartley
Act has never been specifically decided.
As a matter of fact, the Canada Labor Eelations Board, in a case
a year or two ago, decertified the Canada Seamen's Union because it
was a Connnunist-dominated union, without benefit of 9 (h) of the
Taft-Hartley Act, or without benefit of our Smith Act, and absolutely
on language similar to 2 (h) of Taft-Hartley. They had no trouble.
And Ave furnished the committee with a citation on that case. But
that is where the trouble started.
I think the legislative history of 9 (h) particularly is ambiguous,
and I think that an employer has the right, faced as we were in that
section 10 adversar}' proceeding, to prove the fact, namely, that the
officers of this union were members of the Communist Party. But we
weren't permitted to prove that fact.
Thereupon, the trial examiner issued an intermediate report, whicli
said that he recommended to the National Labor Relations Board that
we bargain with this union. Right awaj^, some more literature. We
are subversives. We are defying the Government. Why doesn't
Bader, and Warner, who is chairman of the board, follow the dictates
of the L^nited States Government and bargain with us, with this union,
with this loyal American union. We have a lot of that in the record.
Then we went along. There were a lot of intermittent work stop-
pages. They would call them out to attend a union meeting, obvious
Communist Party discipline, as a matter of fact, to show their
strength.
And then on the 23rd of July, they struck. They struck to enforce —
and this is important — they struck to enforce a certification, that cer-
tification by the National Labor Relations Board.
Now, under existing law, the employer is the only one who may test
that certification. But the only way he has is to refuse to bargain
witli the union.
Thereupon a complaint is filed against him under section 10, and h&
goes through that complaint procedure that we went through, and the
record now, in the old 9 case that I talked about before, the section 9
case, is filed in that section 10 case, and that is the only way he can
get that certification reviewed. And he is the only one that can get
it reviewed.
But what if the union strikes, as this union did, to enforce that
certification? The employer has no open door to a Federal court
room. The Federal courts are closed to him entirely. Specifically,
the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits an injunction, and an injunction
is the only remedj' he can have. The only thing that is going to
protect him from a destructive strike is the preservation of status, a
return to the condition existing prior to the strike, so that he, like
any other citizen litigating a question, can preserve status and not
destroy the subject matter of the litigation.
Now, that is where Precision Scientific Co. was on the 23d day of
July when these people went out — with all the propaganda and every
thing else about defying the Government, that it was a lawful strike,
that they were striking to enforce a certification of the National Labor
Relations Board, that we were subverting the processes of the law by
refusing to recognize them.
156 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
So we stood the strike for about 10 weeks, to the point of imminent
bankruptcy, as the records before Judge Dunne in the circuit court
of Cook County will disclose — and I have a transcript of that record
with me — and then we went into the circuit court of Cook County for
an injunction to order the officers of this union to order the men back
to work, similar to the injunction that Judge Goldsborough issued
against John L. Lewis, and also to restrain the strike.
And the theory of that case was two-fold. Number one, we com-
plained that Illinois, as a sovereign State in this Union, had the right
to determine the question of whether or not a subversive organization
threatening its integrit}^ and sovereignty was a lal)or organization
within the laws of Illinois.
Mr. Arens. Who represented Mine, Mill in these negotiations and
in these legal controversies?
Mr, Sears. Well, Mr. David Rothstein of Chicago represented them
in the injunction proceeding. He represented them dui-ing the sec-
tion 9 proceeding. And he was aided by Mr. Nathan Witt.
Mr. Arens. Nathan Witt was at one time identified with the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, was he not?
Mr. Sears. Yes, he was.
Mr. xIrens. And what was his capacity with the National Labor
Relations Board?
Mr. Sears. I think he was Secretary of the Board, as I recall.
Mr. Arens. And now he is one of the counsel for this Communist-
controlled Mine, Mill?
Mr. Sears. He is general counsel for the Mine, ISIill and Smelter
Workers.
Mr. Arens. He went from the National Labor Relations Board with
the Communist labor organization; is that right?
Mr. Sears. That is where he went.
I want to say, however, on behalf of Mr. Rothstein, not on behalf
of Mr. Witt, that during the entire course of this litigation, Mr. Roth-
stein has acted as a very honorable gentleman at the bar. I want to
say that on behalf of Mr. Rothstein.
Now, this is another thing that is important to the consideration
of this matter. We filed a very detailed complaint. As a matter of
fact, we pleaded evidence, really. All of the evidence that was un-
covered before the McCarran Committee w^as in that complaint. And
after we filed the complaint, we made a motion for a temporary in-
junction. And under Illinois practice, a defendant would be per-
mitted to file an answer denying the allegations of that complaint.
Of course, that had to be a sworn answer, because our complaint was
sworn to. And thereby that defendant could put the plaintiff to the
burden of proving, at least prima facie, the facts alleged in that
complaint.
They filed no answer. They filed a motion to dismiss which ad-
mitted the allegations of the complaint, and they premised their argu-
ment upon the proposition that an Illinois equity court had no juris-
diction to do anything; that the matter was exclusively within the
Federal domain.
Now, in addition to the theory that Illinois, as a sovereign State,
has the right to protect its own sovereignty and integrity from attack,
regardless of whether the attack takes the form of a labor organization
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 157
or not, the other theory was that in any and all events an equity court,
or a constitutional court, such as an Illinois equity court, had the right
to protect the business of its citizens from destruction, pendente lite,
whether that lite was in a Federal court or before a Federal agency,
or in a State court. And after a long hearing and after much evidence
with respect to the financial position of the company, Judge Dunne
issued such an injunction — after a very deliberate hearing.
Well, immediately they started to operate on Judge Dunne. They
put in paid ads.
In the November 25, 1951 issue of the Chicago Daily News and the
Chicago Herald American, they inserted the paid advertisement which
is appended to my statement for the record, and in addition to that,
they distributed copies of that paid advertisement among the workers
at Precision, among the workers at the big Harvester plant in Chicago,
and elsewhere.
Now, they took an appeal to the appellate court of Illinois from
the order issuing the injunction, where the matter is now pending or
waiting for the filing of briefs. It hasn't been argued there orally
yet. But the important thing that I wish to emphasize upon this
committee, if nothing else, is this : That this problem is twofold. And
I don't want to deprecate the importance of the public interest in the
question of communism in labor unions, but we don't want to lose
sight of the property interest of the employer. Because he is the one
most immediately affected by the impact of a political strike. It is
his property that is going to be damaged. And he must have the
open door of a courtroom to protect his property, so that he should
have the right, as every other citizen has the right, to defend himself.
Now, I am not speaking against these three bills at all, and the
fact that a public agency under those bills has the jurisdiction to in-
vestigate the question of communism, because I saw the value of that.
As I said before, had it not been for the McCarran investigation out
in Salt Lake, we wouldn't have the case we have today.
But more consideration, if I may suggest it, should be given to the
proposition that an employer, faced with a Communist-dominated
labor union in his plant, should have a courtroom open to him.
Senator Butler. Mr. Sears, may I say at this point that this com-
iriittee is a task force of the Internal Security Subcommittee. We are
interested only in the internal security of the United States.
The matter that you raise at this point w^ould come more properly
under the Labor Committee. I think that is legislation that should
be considered by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.
This committee has only to do with matters affecting the internal
security. And this committee felt that the situation that we are dis-
cussing posed a threat to the security of the United States, because if
Communist-dominated organizations are permitted to have free access
to our defense plants, where secret and restricted work is being car-
ried on, we have no secrets from our enemies. If Communist-domi-
nated organizations have access to our plants in time of emergency,
we have no security against sabotage. If Communist-dominated
unions and their stooges are admitted into our plants, we have no
sure production. Because, as you know, many methods can be em-
ployed to slow up production.
43903 — 54 11
158 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
We are interested in those phases of the internal security. And
while I would express no opinion on the merit of what you say, that
a man's property should be protected, I think that is something that
does not properly fall within the purview of this investigation.
Mr. Sears. I think, perhaps. Senator, your observations are cor-
rect. It only has, let us say, an indirect bearing.
Senator Butler. There is no question that it does have indirect
bearing. But I do not think that we can take cognizance of it here.
Mr. Sears. Well, I think, then, that I have said about all that I
care to say on the subject. I Avould be very happy to answer any
questions that any of you gentlemen may have.
Mr. Arens. I should like to ask you two or three questions, if I may.
please.
Assuming that legislation were on the lawbooks precluding certi-
fication by the National Labor Relations Board of an organization
which was found by a legitimate agency of the Government to be
Communist-controlled, how would that affect this situation which you
and your friend, Mr. Bader, have been discussing?
Mr. Sears. Well, if the Communist-dominated union was found to
be a Communist-dominated union prior to the fact of a strike, it would
be very helpful.
Mr. Arens. Well, now, let's assume that Mine, Mill had not been
certified as a bargaining agency : Couldn't Mine, Mill just operate as an
independent organization, unless there were further legislation?
Mr. Sears. Absolutely.
Mr. Arens. And couldn't INIine, Mill just contract with the Precision
Co. or any other company ?
Mr. Sears. Sure. Apart from the Board, a business agent of
Mine, Mill could come in and say, "Take a look at these cards. These
are authorization cards. I ask "you to recognize my organization as
the bargaining agent of your employees."
The employer says, "Well, now, if you will kindly go over to the
National Labor Relations Board and file a petition, and if my people
vote for you, I will recognize you." And the business agent can say,
"Well, that is all very well, my friend, but I want you to recognize
me now. And if you don't * * *"
I have tried at least two cases where they have said, "If you don't
recognize me this afternoon, we will 'hit the bricks' " as the expression
goes 'in the morning.' '"
There is nothing unlawful about that.
Mr. Arens. Well, precluding certification is only one plug in the
dike, isn't it ?
■ Mr. Sears. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. Let's, then, Mr. Chairman, get the opinion of Mr.
Sears about some other holes that have to be plugged before we at
least legislatively meet this particular situation.
Is there anything in the present law or policy of the NLRB which
authorizes the Precision Co. to discharge and fire out of the plant
a person who is a Communist ?
Mr. Sears. Specifically, not.
Mr. Arens. Well, let us assume for the sake of argument that one
of the congressional committees, or a court, concludes that Mr. John
Smith is a Communist, and that you look down the payroll of the
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 159
Precision Co. and find that Mr. Jolm Smith is there engaged and
has secret bhieprints on his desk right now pertaining to defense
work. Can j^our company, without jeopardizing your interests, fire
Mr. John Smith ?
Mr. Sears. In those circumstances, yes.
Mr. Arens. How can you do it under these circumstances, and not
under the preceding circumstances ?
Mr. Sears. In the first place, under the circumstances outlined
by the bill, you have at least a record of the fact that the man is a
Communist. Now, I personally think, although I could be very
easily mistaken about this, that, if I had a known Communist in the
plant, I would think I have the right to fire him as an employer. So
far as the Taft-Hartley Act is concerned, it only prohibits my dis-
charging or discriminating against a man because of bona fide activi-
ties on behalf of a labor organization. Other than that, I can fire
him, because I don't like the color of his hair, for example, absent a
specific provision in a collective-bargaining agreement with respect
to causes for discharge.
Mr. Arens. Well, don't the collective bargaining agreements which
you presently have with Mine, Mill, preclude the company from firing
a Communist ?
Mr. Sears. That I don't know. I coudn't say that. I would be
a little doubtful of that.
Mr. Arens. Now, is there anything in the present law, Mr. Sears,
which precludes the letting of defense contracts to a plant which is
bargaining with a Communist-controlled labor organization?
Mr. Sears. Nothing that I know of.
Mr. Arens. As a matter of fact, that is in existence at the present
time in your plant. That is an illustration, is it not?
Mr. Sears. That is a very good illustration of it.
Senator Butler. Mr. Sears, I would like to make this as much of
a two-way street as it can be done. I am looking out for the internal
security. If there is any proof that any employer or any of the man-
aging authority of the plant are Communists, they should be dealt
with in a similar manner.
Mr. Sears. Precisely. Certainly I am not here as a citizen talking
about communism at an employee level and not talking about com-
munism at a management level.
Senator Butler. That is right. It could work both ways.
Mr. Sears. I want to stamp it out at every level, as far as I am
concerned.
Senator Butler. If the employer or any officer of the company or
the persons owning, controlling, or managing the company who would
have access to this data would have access to this, they should be fired
and the contract withdrawn ?
Mr. Sears. Absolutely. What I know about the history of com-
munism doesn't indicate that it is found necessarily at the employee
level.
Senator Butler. And I want to make that clear, that it is not the
purpose of this committee to condemn any labor organization simply
because it is a labor organization. The purpose of this committee is
to protect the internal security of America.
Mr. Sears. Correct.
160 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Buti.er. And we may find just as ninch Communist infil-
tration and influence in the upper or the employer level as we do in
the employee level. I want to make that clear for this record.
iNIr. Sears. I am glad you did because I feel that way about it, too,
Senator.
Mr. Akens. Mr. Sears, it has been suggested from some quarters
that, after all, this question of Communists in labor organizations
is just a (juestion either of the labor organizations to look after, or
it is a question of a squabble between labor and management. Your
plant doesn't have access to security records of this Government, does
it?
Mr. Sears. That I couldn't answer.
Mr. Arens. You are certain that your plant doesn't have access to
the FBI records ?
Mr. Sears. I am sure of that.
Mr. Arens. And you are sure also that the labor organizations
<loirt have access to the FBI records?
Mr. Sears. That is right.
Mr. Arens. It would follow, then, would it not, that the job of
ascertaining who are the Communists in labor organizations and
whether or not a particular labor organization is dominated by the
Comnnmists would be a job for those who do have access to the se-
ourit}' I'ecords of this Government?
Mr. Sears. Of course. It is peculiarly a function of government,
as the Senator from Maryland pointed out, whether it be at an em-
ployee level or at a management level. I mean, it is up to the Gov-
ernment to jirotect its own sovereignty and integrity. And one of
the basic principles of the Government is self-perpetuation. And
that is all the Government is doing.
Mr. Arens. Assuming for the sake of argument that the rank and
file of the mine, mill — and I would hazard a guess that this is the
case — are loyal, patriotic American citizens, before they could divest
themselves of Comnnmists in the labor organization, they would
first have to know who are the Communists in the labor organization,
would they not?
Mr. Sears. Precisely.
Mr. Arens. And, before they could know Avho are the Connnunists
in the labor organization, they would have to have the records
or the facilities presently available only to the security agencies of
the Government of the United States. Isn't that correct ?
Mr. Sears. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Arens. Doesn't it then follow that, if this is a job of cleaning
Communists out of labor organizations and out of defense plants,
it is a job for a duly authorized agency of the United States which
does have access to security records?
Mr. Sears. I would say it is peculiarly within their province.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Sears, have you given any thought to the prob-
lem which troubles this subcommittee, at least troubles me, the situa-
tion in a labor organization where you might have your Communists
not officers in the organization but actually the men who pull the
strings behind the scenes?
Have you given any thought to that?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 161
Mr. Sears. Well, now, if I may be permitted to say, Mr. Travis
at one time was president of this union. We are talking now spe-
cifically about Mine, Mill. He is now secretary-treasurer. But, as
I understand it, for all intents and purposes, he is the actual leader
of the union. Now, were you to move him out from the so-called offi-
cial family, the legislation, any legislation, which would reach only
officers of the organization would be valueless. I mean, it shouldn't
be predicated solely upon their official position but any position of
control, influence, or dominion which they exercise in fact, without
regard to their title.
Senator Butler. But, by like token, any such legislation would
have to have necessary safeguards thrown around it to be sure that
the charge is substantiated?
Mr. Sears. Exactly. I mean, you would have to prove the fact.
Mr. Arens. We are glad to get your observation on it. That is a
troublesome issue, that the Communists are not above placing front
men in an organization, men wliom they can control, and actually sit
back, like Edgar Bergen controls Charlie INIcCarthy, and operate a
labor or any other organization to the benefit of the Communist Party
and to the detriment of the security of our Nation.
Mr. Sears. That is right.
Mr. Arens. Are there any other issues which you would like to dis-
cuss with the subcommittee?
Senator Butler. Have you any suggestion on any of these bills
that 3^ou think would make the bills a better piece of legislation?
Mr. Sears. Well, I think, as Mr. Arens pointed out, I don't be-
lieve the bills are comprehensive enough to coA'er a person who might
not be an officer but might, in fact, be in control of the union.
Mr. Arens. I am disposed to think at least it is attempted to be
made that way.
Mr. Sears. But, other than that, I think that, having in mind the
specific purposes of the bill as the Senator pointed out, I would say
that they are a veiw fine step in the direction of the desired objective,
in my opinion.
Mr. Arens. Do 3^ou think legislation is needed, Mr. Sears, on the
basis of your study of this problem, to preclude individual Com-
munists from being in labor organizations?
Mr. Sears. Well, I just don't see how we can legalize the Com-
munists in any fashion. Noav, we want to bear in mind, of course,
as we well know, that a Communist is a man who believes in the violent
overthrow of the United States Government by force. Now, how
he can have rights in our society, or how a man can have rights in a
society which he seeks to destroy, is a little difficult to understand.
I think that I am a liberal, in a sense. I want a man to have the bene-
fit of all of our cherished traditions. But how we can give rights to
a man who seeks to destroy us — I find that a little difficult.
Senator Butler. We may be getting into another field there.
Mr. Sears. I think we are.
Senator Butler. It is a little difficult, as we all know, to obtain
absolute proof of the state of mind of any given individual.
Mr. Sears. That is right.
Senator Butler. And whether means will be devised by the Con-
gress, through wiretapping and compulsory testimony, irrespective
162 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
of the fifth amendment, and immunity in those tilings, are matters
that are now being considered by Government. And if the day comes
that those things are actually on the statute books, and then we prove
a man to be a Communist, I can't conceive that that man would not
be subject to discharge bv an employer without incurring the wrath
of the National Labor Eelations Board or any agency of the Govern-
ment. I hope that would not be the situation.
Mr. Arens. I would like to probe with Mr. Sears this issue just a
little bit further, Senator.
How would you go about dealing with a Communist-controlled
labor organization which is not certified, in order to drive them out
of defense industries and drive them out of vital industries? A lot
of industries are vital to the defense of this country, which themselves
are not defense industries, such as the steel industry.
Mr. Sears. Well now, I think you have got article 4, section 4, of
the Constitution of the United States, that nobody seems to want to
read, which says that the United States Government shall guarantee
unto the States a republican form of government. I think there is
ample authority there for the Congress of the United States to enact
implementing legislation. You know, there is the old Lloyd case in
Illinois, People against Lloyd, in 304 Illinois, where Lloyd, et al.,
were convicted under a statute of the State of Illinois very similar
to the Smith Act, of conspiring to overthrow the Government of the
United States and the Government of the State of Illinois by force.
Xow, anyone familiar with the history of communism in the labor
movement — or if unfamiliar they could read Mr. Justice Jackson's
opinion, I believe either in the Douds case or the Dennis case — as to
how they took over Czechoslovakia without firing a shot.
Now, the United States Government has an interest in the safety
and the integrity of the United States Government as well as all of
the several States. So that without regard to whether these labor or-
ganizations, these Communist-dominated labor organizations, or any
Communist organization, is found in a vital defense industry or
otherwise, it is still, it seems to me, within the province of the United
States Government to enact legislation pursuant to article 4, sec-
tion 4. And if you read what Hamilton said in the Federtilist with
respect to the purpose of article 4, section 4, you will find that it fits
this situation particularly. That was the principal basis of our
argument before Judge Dunne, that the State of Illinois had the
right to protect its sovereignty and integrity. It wouldn't inake any
difference whether the union was certified or it wasn't certified. Its
existence, whether it is a Communist-dominated union or any Com-
munist organization, within the borders of a particular State, threatens
the sovereignty and integrity of the State. And thereby the State
or the Nation 'has the right to protect itself against that particular
type of menace.
Mr. Arens. Do you suggest any amendments to tlie Norris-
LaGuardia Act or the Clayton Act in order to try to deal with this
menace of Communist penetration and control of labor organizations?
Mr. Sears. I think there is a provision in Senator Goldwater's
bill that treats of that, I think, intended for that purpose.
As I recall the bill, it says that if there is a Communist in the
official familv of the union, it should not be a labor dispute within
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 163
the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. And I assume that that
would mean that a private citizen, having a justiciable status before
the court, could urge the point. I assume that is what it means.
Mr. Arp:ns. Are there any other points that you would like to make ?
Mr. Sears. No, sir.
Mr. Arens. We thank you ever so much.
Senator Butler. Thank you very much, Mr. Sears.
Are there any other witnesses?
Mr. Arens. There are none others scheduled for this morning, but
we have witnesses scheduled for the next few days. We have some
scheduled for tomorrow morning.
Seiiator Butler. The statements offered by Mr. Sears and Mr.
Bader will be made, at this point, part of the official record.
(The statements referred to are as follows:)
Statement of IJarnahas F. Seaks, Chicago, III., Attorney for Precision
Scientific Co.
(Barnubas F. Sears served as chairman of the labor section of the Illinois
State Bar Association from 1945 to 1948 and as chairman of the labor section
of the American Bar Association during 1951 and 1952. He is presently the
labor relations sectinn member of the house of delegates of the American Bar
Association and a member of the board of governors of the Illinois State Bar
Association. Mr. Sears speaks from his personal experience on this subject
and does not purport to speak on behalf of either the Illinois or American
Bar Association.)
THE legal hurdles IN BATTLING COMMUNISTS IN LABOR UNIONS
I do not intend to be so presumptuous as to outline the background of Com-
munist influence in the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers
which is so well known to the distinguished members of this committee. You
are aware of the expulsion of mine, mill, and smelter workers from the CIO
for Communist domination after a full public hearing and upon extensive
and conclusive evidence, all of which was fully set forth in their report, which
was included in Senate Document 89, 82d Congress, 1st session, pages 97-109.
You are likewise aware of the extensive public hearings held by the Senate
subcommittee to investigate the administration of the Internal Security Act
on October 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1952, at Salt Lake City, Utah.
At those hearings 10 of the oflQcials of mine, mill, including the president,
vice president and secretary-treasurer, were subpenaed to testify concerning
their membership in the Communist Party and Communist influence in the
union. In response to every question concerning their relationship to the Com-
munity Party these officers refused to answer and invoked the privilege against
self-incrimination. They further refused to testify whether they had ever
signed Taft-Hartley non-Communist affidavits on the ground that their answers
might tend to incriminate them. In addition to this refusal to testify, the
subcommittee heard direct and positive testimony in which John Clark and
Maurice Travis, the president and secretary-treasurer of the union, were identi-
fied again and again as Comlnunist Party members. After hearing the evi-
dence this committee of the United States Senate reported :
"It should be a matter of deep and continuing concern to all patriotic citizens
that the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, which op-
erates in an industry so vital to the security of the Nation, is controlled by
officers who have been identified under oath as Communists and will not deny
their memliership in the Communist Party."
You have heard the testimony of George Bader, vice president of Precision
Scientific Co., of a long history of agitation and unrest and the frustration of
normal collective bargaining by the activities of this union. But it was not un-
natural that this company was slow to discover the real basis and route of this
unrest and harassment. The expulsion of this union from the CIO received
little publicity but the company became greatly concerned when they discovered
posted upon the company bulletin board a letter from John Clark, president of
164 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
the international union, directed to Edwai'd DeClair, vice president of the local,
and an employee of Precision Scientific Co., in which John Clark thanked
DeClair and tlie members of his local for their support and assured them that
with their continued support they would be able to "defeat their enemies" refer-
ring to a committee of the United States Senate as enemies. After reading the
conclusive testimony before the Senate committee the officials of Precision
Scientific Co. sought my legal advice in combating Communist infiltration into
their plant, which is a vital supplier of the military branches of our Government.
We were at first comforted by the knowledge that the Members of Congress
have long been mindful of the insidious nature of communism in the labor
movement and its effect in promoting strife through political strikes and out-
rageous activities while at the same time almost completely ignoring the legiti-
mate needs of the employees. Congress was mindful of the Communist menace
when it enacted the Smith Act in 1940, which made illegal the advocacy of the
oveiihrow of the United States Government by force or violence or other uncon-
stitutional means.
After 1940 Congress became additionally aware of the grave danger of Com-
munist infiltration in labor unions. After receiving voluminous testimony
Congress determined that interstate commerce must be protected from a con-
tinuing threat of political strikes (.4. C. A. v. nonds. 399 U. S. 382. 406). To
effectuate the determination. Congress enacted section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley
Act in a solemn purpose "to wholly eradicate and bar from leadership in the
American labor movement at each and every level adherence to the Communist
Partv and believers in the unconstitutional overthrow of ovir Government." (V.
L. r'. B. v. Htfihland Park Mfg. Co.. 341 U. S. 322. 252.)
We were further comforted by the fact that Illinois had enacted in 1917 an
anti-Communist statute very similar in context to the Federal Smith Act, which
made illegal organizations for the purpose of advocating the overthrow of the
Government by force or violence or other illegal or unconstitutional means.
P.ut despite the comfort we received from these basic laws and policies, we ran
into the face of the unfortunate phraseology of section 9 (h), its ambiguous
legislative history and the administrative limitations superimposed upon it,
erroneously, we respectfully submit, by the National Labor Relations Board.
It has consistently held that an employer had no right to litigate the question
of compliance with section 9 (h). ( Shawnee Miinnp Co.. 82 N. L. R. B. 1266;
Lion Oil Co.. 76 N. L. R. B. 56.5.) It has also held in earlier decisions that the
truth or falsity of the affidavits were immaterial, and not even subject to Board
investigation. " (Alpert d Alperf, 92 N. L. R.B. 127.) Its later efforts to protect
its processes from abuse have been thus far thwarted by injunctions (Farmer
V. United Electric and Machine Worker.9 of America et al., decided Dec. 4. 1953.
.53 A. L. C. 1384) mainly, we believe upon procedural grounds rather than a
realistic ai>praisal of the substantive question involved.
To us the problem became real when many of the employees of Precision
Scientific Co.. also concerned with the Communist domination of Mine. Mill
turned to local 1031 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL, which in the fall of 19.52 filed a petition seeking a representation election.
Mine. Mill was granted leave to intervene in that proceeding. At the hearings
which followed, the company strenuously objected to having Mine. Mill appear
on the ballot with local 1031 on the ground that the union was Communist-
dominated and had not complied in good faith with section 9 (h) of the Taft-
Hartley Act. Both the company and local 1031 offered evidence of the Com-
munist domination and the falsity of the affidavits. The hearing officer re-
jected all of our evidence and arguments on the ground that compliance with
.section 9 (h) was an administrative matter upon which the company and the
petitioning local 1031 had no right to be beard, and upon the further ground
that the truth or falsity of the non-Commimist affidavits had no bearing upon
compliance. Briefs were filed before the National Labor Relations Board raising
the same question, and the Board rejected our contention in the following
language :
"The employer and the petitioner objected to intervention of the intervener on
the ground that it was not in compliance with the filing requirements of section
9 of the act. The bearing officer overruled this objection and rejected evidence
in support of the employer's and petitioner's position. The Board has held that
compliance with these requirements is an administrative matter not litigable in
section 9 and 10 proceedings under the act."
On March 3. 1953. an election was held pursuant to the Board's order and
Mine. ^Mill received 138 votes out of the 210 cast. The company filed objections
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 165
to the election again raising the question of the union's compliance with section
9 (h). Again the trial examiner and the board summarily rejected our argu-
ment, and Mine, Mill was certified as the collective bargaining representative of
the company.
One may legitimately ask why 138 of our employees would vote for a union of
such a communistic background if their activities were as obvious as we suggest.
The answer is actually very clear. By skillful propaganda, Mine. Mill twisted
the meaning of the Board's decision into an explicit endorsement of Mine, Mill's
position. Mine, Mill took the very section 9 (h) that was designed to prevent
Communist infiltrati-on into trade unions as a means of adjudicating their
Americanism.
After the Board's order directing an election, Mine, Mill distributed a leaflet
entitled "Company and IBEW 1031 lose round 1." It further stated that, "The
Labor Board threw out the phony arguments of Precision and of Mike (The
Bosses) Darling (president, local 1031) to keep us off the ballot on grounds
of communism * * * So Bader and Darling's conspiracy to deprive Precision
workers of the right to vote for the union of their choice is beaten."
It is not unusual that the individual employees of the plant readily believed that
the Board's decision was more than a mere administrative and legal one, but
that it amounted really to an endorsement of Mine, Mill and a vindication against
the charges of communism. Thus one of the most dangerous Communist-domi-
nated unions in the country was able to win an election by cloaking itself in the
mantle of the Labor Board's order.
The Precision Scientific Co. was anxious to bargain with its employees but
was imwilling to permit a Communist-dominated union to entrench itself in this
company and to be in a position to control vital war production. Facing the
order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring it to bargain with this
union, whose purported compliance with section 9(h) could not be acknowledged
under oath, the company felt forced to remain firm. Regretting its inability to
deal with its loyal employees and bargain with them, it was nevertheless forced
to reject Mine, Mill's demand for collective bargaining in order to finally get a
judicial determination of its duty to bargain with a Communist-dominated
union. It seemed inconceivable to us that Congress ever intended that the
administrative orders of the Government should be used to protect, encourage,
and revitalize the very communistic and subversive force that Congress has so
clearly condemned.
In so proceeding we understood full well the hazards. We understood that a
crippling strike to enforce the certification of the Board could bring this comi)any
into bankruptcy and total destruction. On the other hand the alternative, to
reco.tmize this union, meant ultimate ruin in the form of continual luirest, inter-
mittent "quickie" strikes, and finally the political strike. And so Precision did
what many other Americans have been forced to do. fight for the right to conduct
its business along American lines and principles. It refused to recognize the
certification of the Board requiring it to bargain, thereby following the only
avenue permitted it by Federal law to test the validity of the certification. In
the meantime it granted its employees a 10-cents-per-hour wage increase and kept
in full force and effect paid holidays, vacations, and other lecognized terms
and conditions of employment.
Uiion our refusal to bargain with the union on the sole ground that it was
Communist-dominated, an unfair-labor-practice charge was filed against us and
a complaint issued upon this charge.
Again we answered the charge by alleging that we refused to bargain with
Mine. Mill for the reason that it was dominated and controlled by members of
the Communist Party, that it was not a labor organization witbiri tlie meaning
of section 2 (5) of Taft-Hartley, and that it was not in compliance with section
9 (h) of that act. While it could possibly be contended that a representation
proceeding and an election should not be delayed pending a long hearing on Com-
munist domination of a union (the union might not win the election), an en-
tirely different situation is presented when an emplo.ver is charged with a
refusal to bargain. In the first place such a proceeding is an adversary as dis-
tinguished from an investigatory one. Rights such as due process emerge. The
Board order is enforcible by the courts. Rights over the economic welfare of
citizens are created. Contractual commitments, enforcible in the courts, are
necessary concomitants. The future of the company and its employees are at
stake. We could never believe that Congress intended that an employer be
required to bargain with a Communist-dominated union, much less that an
agency of the Government could be used to compel it to submit to communistic
166 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
infiltration into its business, without according it the right to be heard and
prove the fact.
This unfair labor practice case was referred to a trial examiner of the NLKR
who held hearings in Chicago. The NLRB in response to our subpena for the
Taft-Hartley affidavits filed by the officers of this union refused to comply, and
the subpena we had served upon them for the production of these affidavits was
revoked by the trial examiner. We were, however, permitted to subpena ]\iaurlce
Travis and John Clark, officers of the union. At the hearing the trial examiner
rejected all of our offers of proof with regard to the Communist domination of
Mine, Mill. The trial examiner refused to permit us to question Maurice Travis
and John Clark with regard to their membership in the Communist Party. The
trial examiner even refused to permit us to ask Travis and Clark whether they
had in fact signed Taft-Hartley affidavits. In this connection it should be noted
that Travis and Clark had previously refused to testify before a Senate subcom-
mittee as to whether or not they had filed such affidavits. We offered to prove by
extensive testimony that this union is in fact dominated and controlled by the
Communist Party and is not a labor organization but is a subversive organization
acting to further the ultimate Communist goal — the overthrow of our form of
government.
After the conclusion of this hearing, and on October 21. 19.5.3. the trial examiner
filed his intermediate report in which he found that we had violated the act in
refusing to bargain with I\Iine. Mill and recommended an order to force us to
bargain collectively with this union. In due course we filed exceptions to the
intermediate report together with briefs before the NLRB seeking an acquittance
from this charge.
In view of the past decisions of the Board we cannot be overly critical of the
regional officers for the action they have taken against us, but it strikes us as
anomalous to be condemned by a Government agency for participating with all
our ability in the struggle against subversive domination and infiltration into
labor unions — an objective long commended by Congress. All during these pro-
ceedings the union has distributed to our employees and to the public generally
pamphlets implying that we are the un-American and subversive people. James
Pinta, business manager of the local union, wrote a letter to the NLRB stating that
we were "brazenly violating the law and defying the United States Government."
This letter was published and circulated generally as was another miraeogi-aphed
handbill stating that we were against the Government and accusing the officers
of the company of "defying the United States Government's order" and stating
that the officers of the company are "proving that they are the subversives defy-
ing the law and the Government." They further circulated a mimeographed
"open letter" to the commissioner of police of Chicago in which they conclude that
"the police are actually siding and abetting Precision management in their viola-
tion of the Federal law." and further threatened that they will file a charge
with the NLRB against the commissioner of police charging him with a violation
of Federal law.
These same slanderous statements and attacks have been made repeatedly while
we are doing nothing more than seeking to preserve our legal rights in our fight
against Communist infiltration into our business.
While we were proceeding through the noi-mal legal channels to obtain an
adjudication of our rights the union began a program of intermittent work
stoppages and walkouts without notice from November 19. 1952, through ^lay
of 19.53. ITien on July 23, 1953, the union declared a full-scale strike at Pre-
cision. They first established a large picket line of strangers of between 60
and 80 people.
Thus while in possession of ample evidence indicating clearly that the inter-
national and local officers of this union were members of the Comiuunist Party,
we were confronted by the very real problem of overcoming the strike by force
or recognizing this union as the Federal processes afforded us no remedy.
Indeed the Norris-LaGuardia Act specifically denied us access to the Federal
courts. After withstanding the strike to the point of imminent bankruptcy and
finding it unabating, we sought recourse to the State court in the form of an
injunction proceeding to restrain the strike upon either of two theories :
(a) That the union was not a labor organization under the laws of Illinois
because its existence threatened the sovereignty and integrity of the State; and
(h) That an equity court has inherent jurisdiction to protect tlie business of
a citizen from destruction pendente lite, whether the litigation be pending in a
State court or a Federal agency or court.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 167
We Hied a lengthy and detailed complaint. We set out almost word for word
the evidence developed by the McCarran committee in Salt Lake City. We
averred that the officers of this union were members of the Communist Party
and that its policies and aims were dictated and dominated by that party. We
swore to that complaint. We applied for a temporary injunction, upon notice
to the union, upon tlie liliuu: of our complaint. Notwithstanding that Illinois
practice iiermits a defendant to file an answer denying the facts alleged in the
complaint and puts the plaintilf to the burden of proving the facts alleged in
order to procure such a temporary injunction, no answer was filed by the union.
It elected merely to file a motion to dismiss and supported it by its basic ar-
gument that the State court had no jurisdiction, that the matter was exclusively
witliin the Federal domain. In otlier words, if the union could enforce its
certification by force, the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act affording us a re-
view of the certification were but ephemeral and illusory.
P^ortunately for us. for otherwise we wouldn't be here, we were heard by a
judge, the Honorable R. Jerome Dunne of the circuit court of Cook County,
111., who thought and l)elieved that the law did not intend that we be suffocated
by a crippling strike while we were endeavoring to test in the only manner
provided by law the validity of a certification procured from the National
Labor Relations Board by a notoriously Communist-dominated union. Or
maybe he thought that the Sovereign State of Illinois through the agency of one
of its constitutional courts had the inherent right to protect its own sovereignty
and integrity and tlie property of its citizens from destruction at the hands of
an organization which would not deny under oatli before him that its officers
were members of the Communist Party, although afforded the opportunity to
do so.
After argument, he issued a temporary injunction, commanded the officers
of the union to order its members bade to work and enjoined the strike until
the further order of the court. Immediately he became the subject of villifica-
tion and abuse by the union. Handbills were circulated at the Precision plant,
at tlie Harvester plant in Chicago, and others, paid advertisements appeared in
the November 2.5, 1953, issue of the Chicago Daily News and the Chicago Herald
American newspapers. Tlie extent of the villiflcation is best indicated by copies
of this advertisement attached hereto.
An appeal from the temporary injunction was taken by the union to the
appellate court of Illinois where the matter is now pending. The unfair labor
practice case, charging us with a refusal to bargain with this union is pending
before the National Labor Relations Board on briefs submitted by the parties.
On February 4, 1954, tliat Board entered an order calling for a separate admin-
istrative investigation and hearing to determine whether Travis, the secretary-
treasurer of the union has admitted that all affidavits filed by him with the
Board are false and whether the membership of the Union was aware of tlie
falsity of those affidavits. A motion by the union, addressed to the Board
and challenging the validity of that order is pending so that the fact of that
investigation and the scoiie of the hearing is presently undetermined.
By now, the following should appear obvious:
(1) That section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act is ineptly worded and its
meaning obscure.
(2) That the public policy enunciated in the Smith Act has received no atten-
tion from either the Board or the courts in dealing with the problem of a
Communist dominated union.
(3) That Federal law affords no protection to an employer faced with a
strike for recognition by a Communist-dominated union, be that union certified
by the P.oard or otherwise. The employer must either win the strike or recognize
the union. The Federal courts are closed to him for all practical puriioses.
(4) That the Federal law providing for a review of a certification by the
Board is an illusory right if the certified union strikes for recognition. Again,
insofar as Federal law is concerned, the employer must either win the strike
or recognize the certified Communist-dominated union. Even if he wins the
strike, he still must defend the charge of a refusal to bargain. The union is
still accorded the processes of Federal law. If the employer loses the strike,
he must recognize the union. Automatically he loses his right to review the
certification for, by recognizing the union (which requires him to bargain) the
refusal to bargain case becomes moot and the certification final.
Now, what is the remedy? In the first place, give the employer his day in
court. After all, he is the one most immediately concerned with the impact
of a political strike. The danger of a Communist-dominated union is to him,
168 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
most immediate. He and he alone sustains the damage incident to intermittent
quickie strikes, but rehearsals for the final show. On him primarily falls the
liurden of the ever-present unrest resulting from the propaganda thrusts of the
fellow travelers in his plant. Is he to be without remedy except at the grace of
a Board notoriously slow in its processes? Unless like any other citizen he is
free to protect his property in a court having jurisdiction to preserve it, pendente
lite, the great tradition of due process is but an empty phrase, and his factory
may become but a memory.
And when I say, give him his day in court, what do I mean? I mean, in the
finest American tradition, let him defend himself. Let him have control of his
own case. Spell out clearly that 9 (h) of Taft-Hartley means what we might
think it means, namely, that he has the right to produce evidence that the ofl3-
cial family of the certified union is infested with Communists. Spell out clearly
that section 2 (5) of the act does not include a Communist-dominated organiza-
tion as a labor organization within its meaning and that an employer, at least
in a section 70 case under the act, has the right to prove the fact. After all,
the Canada Labor Relations Board, without benefit of the Smith Act or a 9 (h)
provision in its act, and, upon language almost identical with section 2 (5) of
our act, held, upon evidence similar to that which we sought to introduce in our
case before the Board, that the Canada Seamen's Union, a Communist-domi-
nated union, was not a labor organization within the meaning of its act. It
decertified that union and saw no difiiculty in the production of necessary evi-
dence before it by the employer involved in that case. (Branch Lines, Ltd. and
Canadian Seamen's Union (Canada Labor Service, par. 16,022; certiorari denied
(•(928 "HT as (teox)
Afford an employer, confronted with a Communist-dominated union, the open
door of a Federal courtroom. Enable him to obtain a stay order, upon notice
and a proper showing of good cause, to protect and preserve his business while
he defends himself against a charge that he has refused to bargain with a Com-
munist-dominated union. If we can't pause to inquire into the subversive affilia-
tions of the offic'al family of this union seeking to have its name placed upon
a Government-printed ballot so that it can be voted for at a Government-con-
ducted election, thereby giving governmental aid and sanction to the traitorous
purposes of its oflScers, at least let us pause and give the one person most directly
and immediately concerned and affected, an opportunity to defend himself. It
is siieer idiocy to cram this union down his throat. It is most un-American to
do so without affording him an opportunity to defend himself. It is nothing
less than paternalism in its most naked form to turn the job over to the exclusive
domain of a Government agency.
We repeat, but for the wisdom and fortitude of a chancellor of an Illinois
equity court, we would not be here today. Precision Scientific Co. would have
passed from the industrial scene. A 30-year-old business with a great capital
investment would have been destroyed with the attendant loss to this Govern-
ment of its great ingenuity and skill in the development and manufacture of
the basic scientific apparatus necessary to make this country strong and pros-
perous. The only alternative would have been for the oiBcials of this company
to affix their signatures to a collective-bargaining contract conferring upon
local 758 of Mine, Mill the quasi-governmental powers of a collective-bai-gaining
agent by the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947. In the words of Chief
Justice Stone, we would be conferring upon this Communist-dominated union
"power not unlike that of a legislature." (Steele v. Louisville and Nashville
Railroad Co. 323 U. S. 192, 198). We do not believe that Congress will permit
a company to face this alternative. We do not believe tliat this Congress would
rely solely upon the courage and fortitude of Judge Dunne, of Illinois, and others
like him as the sole Imlwark against subversion in labor organizations.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 169
(ADVERTISEMENT)
(ADVERTISEM
mL
(AbVEBTISEM&lT)
DAN
WHEN LABOR'S RIQHTS
ARE INVADED THE
FREEDOM OF ALL IS IN
DANQERI
On Sepl.mber 30, 1953. Cook
rounty Circuit Judge Jerome
Dunne handed down an injunc-
tion againot a otrike of this
I'nion at Preripion Scientific
Company which is a ^rave
thrtot to all unions. It is vith-
oui previous precedcDt or any
basis in law.
BACKGROUND
In March, 1953 this Union won an
NLRB election decisively. We were
certified as bargaining agent by the
NLRB on April 10, 1953.
The Company refused to recognize
tbe Union or to bargain.
The Labor Board issued a complaint
against the Company for refusal to
bargain and held hearings.
The Trial Examiner of the Board
has rejected the Company's arguments
and recommended the Company be
ordered to bargain with Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers. His report is now
pending final action in Washington.
Meantime, on July 23rd, the Union
vent on strike for union recognition.
The Company filed suit for an in-
junction and $1,000,000 damages.
On September 15, Master in Chan-
cery, I. Brown, recommended the
Company* suit be dismissed. He up-
held tbe Union's contentions that the
Federal Government has jurisdiction
in this case and that no cause for an
injunction was shown.
On September 30th, Judge Dunne
over-ruled tbe Master's report and
issued tbe injunction.
THIS
INJUNCTION
MUST BE
REVERSED!
THIS INJUNCTION MEANS!
This union has complied with the proviuonB of the
Taft-Hartley Act, evidenced by notice from tbe Labor Board
confirming that compliance, and by the Board's action in
certifying this union.
There was no violence in this strike, no contract viola-
tions, no jurisdictional dispute — none of the usual grounds
for injunctions.
The Company*s only claim irns the McCarlhyhe nrgi>
ment that this strike ivas a Communist conspiracy to over-
throU' the government!
Long before McCarthy, Hitler and Mussolini busted
the unions in Germany and Italy with the same false charge
of "Communism," and sent thousands of labor leaders to
concentration camps, or lo execution.
When McCarlhyism leads to charges tantamount to
treason against the former Pres^ident of llie L^niled States —
When McCarthyism reaches the point of destroying
the rlgiit to strike through the injunction —
Then — it is time for Labor and all pprsons who
believe in our democratic freedoms to speak up lo
defend the freedom and liberty ^aranteed us by our
constitution.
Judge Dunne's decision creates thefoilowing issues:
t) If Mrvos thos«, especially fh« Republican Administration,
who ore stekinq to make "Slates Rights" apply tc> labor
costs and it sets aside the federal law and procedure In
favor of 0 stote court deciding such issues.
2) It severely restricts the right to strike, since any employer
can find on issue to challenge o certification end get on
in|uftetion while Labor Board proceedings go on for months.
3) It applies "McCarthyism," which was the Compony's only
argument, to brook a strike and drive workers to work
without a union contract and under conditions set by
the employer.
4) It puts in practice the principles of the Gotdwater-Rhodes
Bill and the Butler Bill now pending in Congrets, which
hove been denounced by oM orgonixed labor.
This caee Bvmbolizes the many attack* beinp made on labor's rifihta under llie present "Big Busi-
ness" Administration in WafibinRlon. It is typical of llie purpose of the Butler Bill, allowing ihe
outlawing of Unions, now pendinp in Congress. Labor has to act together, unitedly, to defeat these
attacks or we will be pushed back to the open shop, 50e an hour days of Hoover!
All Americans should join in protecting labor's rights as the foundation stones of democracy.
TAKE ACTION!
We urge all unions and Individual citiiens
by the following action:
1. Make public statements protesting this
injunction.
2. Join "Amicus Curiae" (friend, of the
court) in the appeal this union is making
to the higher courts.
3. Send resolutions and statements to the
National Labor Relations Goerd, Wash-
to act to reverse this dangerous precedent
ington, D.C. urging the Board to speedily
uphold its Trial Examiner and' compel
Precision Scientific Company to obey
the law and bargain with the legally-
certified union of its employees.
4. Urge U. S. Senators and Congressmen
to defeat the Butler Bill, which can out-
law unions, now pending in Congress.
INTERNATIONAL UNION Of MINE, MILL & SMELTER WORKERS
LOCAL 758. IliO S. OAKLEY BLVD.. CHICAGO. MO i-7010
170 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Statement of Geokge E. Badeu, Vice President and Wouks Managek, Precision
Scientific Co.
I have been associated with Precision Scientific Co. since September 1950
and as works manajier since September 1051 and more recently as vice presi-
dent in charge of manufacturing. Precision Scientific Co., 3737 West Cortland
Street, Chicago, 111., is the world's largest manufacturer of scientific research
and production-control apparatus in the metal line, ^\'e supply the Atomic
Energy Commission, the Munitions Board, the Medical Procurement, and other
Government agencies, along with commercial, technical, and medical reseai'ch
and development laboratories, witli testing and research apparatus pertinent to
the petroleum, biological, metallurgical, and chemical fields.
Precision Scientific Co. was founded in 1919 and througli the years has grown
to a company producing approximately $4 million of laboratory equipment each
.vear. In the past we have manufactured vital equipment for the Armed
Forces mucli of which was classified material.
During recent years the company developed an airborne mobile petroleum
laboratory. Such a laboratory was used in the Korean theater for testing and
(becking gasoline and other petroleum products captured from the enemy, also
in determining whether or not United States Armed Forces petroleum supplies
had been sabotaged.
Prior to the development of this mobile laboratory, confiscated supplies or
materials of which there was a suspicion of sabotage were normally sent to
field offices for checking and testing. This practice often caused great delay
and sometimes made it impossible to use the captured materials and supplies in
question for a long period of time. In some instances the extreme urgencies
surrounding the situation did not permit the time required to send testing samples
to the base laboratories for testing; therefore, the materials were destroyed.
The company was codeveloper of the iron lung and has contributed to important
research work on blood plasma units, centrifuges, Warburg units. Kjeldahl,
recordomatic titrometer, robomatic refractometer, automatic distillation units,
biological oxidation determination units, ovens, incubators, sterilizers, auto-
claves, stills, lonographs, and many other such products. All of these develop-
ments are of gi-eat importance in scientific research and progress in the petroleum,
chemical, biological, metallurgical, and medical (including cancer research)
fields.
In June 1953 the Chief of the Chicago Branch of the Industrial Mobilization
and Procurement and Planning Division of the armed services and the Medical
Procurement Agency requested us to make certain commitments for vital pro-
duction in the event of total mobilization. Most of the products are manufac-
tured and can only be manufactured by Precision Scientific Co., but because
ot our great difficulties with the Communist-dominated union of Mine, Mill, and
Smelter Workers, we have been unable to make sucli commitments up to the
present time. Because of cur difficulties we have been unable to deliver many
items which have been demanded under National Production Authority directives
which are essential to the defense effort. We could not meet a directive to handle
a high temperature rectifying bath to the North American Air Craft Co. which
was indispensable for the proper testing of certain military aircraft parts. This
is just one of the examples of our inabilitv to take our proper place in the defense
effort.
At the present time we have well over a million dollars in unfilled orders,
much of which have been given priox-ities by the National Production Authority.
I am in constant receipt of urgent requests from companies in vital defense work
for the Munitions Board and the Atomic Energy Commission, urgently requesting
lis to deliver equipment necessary for their work. The harassments, the work
stoppages and the strikes we have been burdened with make it impossible to
properly manufacture and fill our orders, and thereby (in addition to dooming
this company to oblivion) seriously hinder and retard scientific and medical
research of the Atomic Energy Commission, various branches of the Armed Forces
and vital defense industries.
With this background of the company, I would like to review the unprec-
edented difficulties that we have had with the International Union of Mine,
Mill, and Smelter Workers.
Shortly after I assumed the responsibilities of works manager, I realized
a sense of alarm about the unusual amount of strife and unrest that existed
among the employees of the company and in addition thereto the lack of normal
peaceful labor relations existing between the union representatives and the
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 171
representatives of management. This condition puzzled me particularly be-
cause a 2-year contract had been ne.wtiated and acreed upon in recent months.
I determined to make a study of tlie conditions that existed during the period
of the negotiation and the contractual terms agreed upon, and determine what
demands had been made during that negotiation by the union and what por-
tion of those demands had been refused or agreed to by the company.
As a result of the study I made in this regard, I found that the company had
agreed to all of the demands of the union, and that from the i)eriod of Feb-
ruary 1.5 to April 26, 10.51 (the date the contract was signed), many of the
negotiating period pressure tactics were used to accomplish the demands made
at the bargaining table. It did appear to me, however, that the tactics used
were somewhat severe.
I disclosed that immediately after the signing of this contract, in which the
company had agreed to all of the demands of the union, that an activity began
that was more disruptful and obstructive than during the negotiating period
prior to the contract agreement. Upon further investigation I determined
that the contract terms agreed upon embraced all of the usual fringe benefits
that exist in this industrial era and therefore could not be the source of the
difficulty.
I discovered that the activities were not directed to contractual gains, but
were directed to encourage industrial strife and unrest, thereby disrupting and
obstructing the company's ability to produce its products.
From the period of the signing of the contract (April 26, 1951) to the time of
my investigation, I found that activities of the union and their representatives
during this period were typical of the following:
1. That during the months of May through September of 1951 of a total
of 97 working days during this period, 72 of those days were in part or in
whole utilized by the shop committee of this union in meeting with other of
our employees in attempts to disclose grievances that may have existed in
our plant. That during the month of October 1951, 22 of a total of 23
working days were devoted to the same purpose.
2. That during this period there wei'e many occasions when the employees
would refuse to work overtime for no other reason than that they were
instructed by the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers officials to refuse.
3. There were instances where the union representatives gave permis-
sion for the worker to work overtime and then refused to allow this work
to he done when the scheduled time arrived.
4. That during the meetings of the union representatives and employees
purportedly aggrieved, the union representatives' activities were carried to
a point of fanatical badgering of the management representatives attending.
5. It became apparent that the meetings attended by management rep-
re.sentatives were intended to put management in the position of being ridi-
culed, slandered, and abused.
6. It became apparent that the union representatives' activities were suc-
ceeding in developing in the minds of our employees a state of confusion
and unrest as a result of these abnormally strifeful labor relations.
Upon the completion of my study of these conditions. I was unable to under-
stand the reason why the company should be bui'dened with these totally un-
precedented activities in the field of labor relations. I was without recoui'se
other than to advise management that we continue to strive for better relations
through the medium of negotiation and peaceful settlement of whatever prob-
lems existed in the minds of our people.
We proceeded along these lines until October of 1952. at which time the
union threatened to cancel the existing contract, which was to expire on Feb-
ruary 16, 1953, if we didn't immediately grant numerous preposterous and un-
reasonable demands. We refused to negotiate a new contract prematurely and
thereupon the union canceled the existing contract.
In reviewing the labor-management events from the date of signing the con-
tract, April 26. 1951, to the date of cancellation, October 17, 1952, a period of
343 workdays had elapsed during which there were 185 meetings with the
union representatives for the purpose of peacefully working out the predica-
ment with which we were burdened. During the same period the company
was plagued with seven complete woi-k stoppages, countless work slowdowns,
and suffered general harassment and obvious attempts to create a subservient
management. Such events resulted in time lost of 10,625 hours in 1951, 792 hours
in 19.52, and 11,192 hours up until .lune 1953.
The management did not realize the union's objectives for all of this inane
activity until late October 19.52, when on the union bulletin board there was
172 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
posted a letter dated October 20, 1952, on International Union of Mine, Mill,
and Smelter Workers stationery, addressed to Edward DeClair, vice president
of the local union and chairman of the shop committee, signed by John Clark,
president of the international union, which letter read as follows :
OCTOBEE 20, 1952.
Del\r Brother DrClair: I wish to acknowledge with deep appreciation the
message of support you sent to us in Salt Lake City at tlie time we apiieared
before the ]McC«rran committee.
Our ability to defeat the efforts of McCarran to destroy our union depends
upon the rank and file of our union and expression such as yours indicate that
we will defeat our enemies.
Sincerely and fraternally yours,
John Clark, President.
The appearance of the above letter on the union bulletin board, placed there
by union representatives for our employees to view, caused me to take the
following steps :
1. Obtain press clippings of the Senate investigation held at Salt Lake
City referred to in the above letter.
2. Secure copies of the Senate investigation report on the hearings before
that committee.
8. Secure legal counsel after studying the contents of the Senate inves-
tigation report on the hearings.
After fully studying all of the material we could secure relative to the Inter-
national Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers and the reports of the
investigating committees of the Senate, relative to Communist domination of
said union, and consolidating the findings therein with the experiences we had
been undergoing with representatives of the same union, we concluded that the
representatives of the International Union of Jline, Mill, and Smelter Workers
were not acting as a labor organization as defined in section 2 (5) of the Labor-
Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, but obviously was a front for
an organization wherein the purpose of its leaders is to disrupt normal, peaceful
labor relations, encourage, and foment strikes, slowdowns, industrial strife and
unrest, whenever it served the ends of the world Communist movement.
We further concluded from the material and Senate investigation reports that
the activities of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers
is obviously directed, dominated, and controlled by individuals who are or have
been members of the Communist Party, whose primary purpose is tliat of pro-
moting and achieving the program and the purpose of the Communist Party,
including the overthrow of the United States Government by force or other
illegal and unconstitutional means.
We have, therefore, as a result of our conclusions, refused to acknowledge
representatives of the Interantional Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers
as bargaining representatives of the employees of Precision Scientific Co. and
have been and are prepared to take our case before the highest trilmnal of the
United States of America.
Senator Butler. The task force will stand in recess until 10 o'clock
tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 11 : 15 a. m., the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m.,
Friday, February 19, 1954.)
(Subsequently the following letter and statement were ordered
printed in the record by Senator Butler, acting chairman of the task
force.)
The Western Union Telegraph Co.,
Washington, D. C, Februari/ 18, 1954-
Hon. John INIarshall Butler,
Clinirmnn, Task Force, Suhcommittce on
Internal Security, Senate Office Building,
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Chairman : I shall appreciate it if you will arrange to have the
attached statement incorporated into the record of the hearings on S. 1606,
S. 1254, and S. 23.
Tours very truly,
K. W. Heberton.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 173
Statement of J. L. Wilcox, Vice President of Employee Relations,
THE "N^'estern Union Telegraph Co.
Because of the nature of the telegraph business representing, as it does, a
vital part to our national security, the problem of Communist-dominated unions
and the infiltration of Communists into a critical industry's workin.iJi; forces has
Ions been under serious consideration by Western Union. It is for this reason
that I am particularly .urrateful for this opportunity to present the company's
view of the problem and to recommend a solution.
It is not strange that section 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act re-
quiring union officers to take a non-Communist oath, has been wholly ineffective.
One has only to read the following excerpt from Lenin to realize that the mere
taking of a false oath would cause little trouble to the conscience of a member
of the Communist Party :
"It is necesary * * * if need be * * * to resort to all sorts of stratagems,
maneuvers and illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges, in order to penetrate
the trade unions, to remain in them and to carry on Commmiist work in them
at all costs."
Even though legislation could be adopted which would effectively eliminate
the presence of a Communist in union office or result in the decertification of
the union, the problem would yet remain with regard to the Comnuniist employee
working in a key position in an industry vital to the national security.
It seems to me that this is an equally important problem and also a difficult
one with which to cope in those industries which are particularly susceptible to
sabotage.
While the union officer in the telegraph industry does not as a rule have ac-
cess to the plant the real danger stems from his ability to cut off, in time of
emergency by means of the strike weapon, the flow of communications so vital
to the health, safety, and welfare of the Nation.
Similarly in time of emergency, the individual Communist employee having
access to sensitive and often delicate equipment constitutes a real danger whether
or not he belongs to a Communist-dominated union.
The problem therefore is twofold :
1. The Communist-dominated union.
2. The Communist employee working in a key position.
At present the employer is unal)le to take any legal steps to combat either of
the above conditions.
As regards No. 1 — it has previou.sly been pointed out that even though the Taft-
Hartley law offers adequate provision for the elimination of the self-confessed
Communist union officer, he has only to swear to his innocence to remain immune
from its effects.
As regards No. 2 — there is at the present time nothing in the way of legislation
to permit the employer to deal effectively with this problem especially as it relates
to the identification of Communists in industry's ranks.
Labor men, of course, realize the dangers inherent in any legislation that would
in any way interfere with the employees" free choice of representation. Never-
theless concern for the national security must prevail in any consideration of
the possible limitation of such free choice. It is common knowledge that the
Communist minority seizes control of a labor organization often by taking advan-
tage of the fears, ignorance, or indifference of the membership or because the
membership is unaware of the existence of a Communist group within the union.
Once entrenched they become self-perpetuating and cannot be dislodged by the
application of union bylaws and procedures. This subversive minority utilizes
its position to the detriment of our national welfare. It therefore becomes neces-
sary that legislation be enacted which will remedy this dangerous situation.
Thus we have no hesitation in recommending that Congress use its full legisla-
tive power to eradicate dangerous Communists from positions of power or in-
fluence in labor unions and to further provide immunity for those industries
engaged in or effecting interstate commerce that discharge from their ranks
known Communist employees and subversives.
Senate bill 1254 and its companion H. R. 7171 appear to me to effectively deal
with the problem of Communist-tainted labor organizations. The further prob-
lem of Communist employees working in key positions is more complex and
difficult to deal with because of the possible encroachment on personal liberties,
43903 — 54 — —12
174 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
and it seems to me that item (d) of bill S. 23 at least represents an approach to
its solution.
Since I and other company oflBcials appeared before the subcommittee of the
Committee of the Judiciary, 82d Congress, 1st session, I would like to include
in the record by reference the testimony given at that time.
In conclusion please again let me thank the committee for this opportunity
to present my company's views and to express the earnest hope that the legisla-
tion so necessary to the security of the Nation will at last receive favorable action
by the Congress. This statement has been submitted by letter in the interest of
saving the committee's time. Should it be deemed advisable that my personal
appearance would be helpful, I shall consider it an honor to comply at the com-
mittee's convenience.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1954
United States Senate,
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration
or THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal
Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington^ D. C.
The task force of the subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call,
in room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler (chair-
man of the task force) presiding.
Present : Senator Butler (presiding).
Present also : Richard Arens, special counsel ; Frank Schroeder and
Edward Duffy, members of the professional staff of the subcommittee.
Senator Butler. The committee will be in order.
This morning we are continuing the legistlative phase of the several
bills pending before this task force. We have heretofore in executive
and private session had a volume of testimony in connection with the
internal security phases of the several bills. These hearings this morn-
\ng will be in the nature of legislative hearings.
Mr. Arens, will you please call your first witness 1
Mr. Arens. Mr. William W. Miller, the vice president of the
Stewart- Warner Corp. in charge of industrial relations. Will you
kindly come forward, Mr. Miller ''.
Senator Butler. In the presence of Almighty God, do you solemnly
swear and declare the evidence you will give before this task force of
the Internal Security Subcommittee of tlie United States Senate will
be the truth; the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Miller. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM W. MILLER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
STEWART-WARNER CORP., NORTHFIELD, ILL.
Mr. Arens. Will you kindly identify yourself by name, residence,
and occupation i
Mr. Miller. My name is William AV. Miller. I live in Northfield,
111. I am vice president of Stewart- Warner Corp., in charge of
industrial relations.
Mr. Arens. And you also have an officer post in the industrial rela-
tions commission of the Illinois Manufacturers Association?
Mr. Miller. I am chairman of the industrial relations committee
of the Illinois Manufacturers Association.
175
176 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr, Arens. Mr. Miller, has your company, the Stewart-Warner
Corp., had any experiences or difficulties with a Communist-domi-
nated union or organization ?
Mr. Miller. We have had considerable experience, and I would
like to tell about it.
Mr. Arens. Will vou kindlv, in vour own wav and at vour own
pace, just relate to the committee the ex])erie7ices which you have had?
Mr. Miller. I want to make it clear that I am telling about my own
company's experiences with this union and my own personal recom-
mendations as to the legislation before you based on these experiences.
Stewart-Warner has contracts in its various plants with about 11
different hibor unions. This includes the UAW, the lUE, Steel
Workers Union of the CIO, Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers Union,
which was expelled from the CIO, and the IBEW and the lAlNI, AFL,
a completely independent union, and about four other unions which
represent smaller groups of employees.
We try to maintain a sound, friendly, businesslike relationship
with the unions representing our emj^loyees, and, in general, I would
say that we have been successful in doing so.
I want to tell you, however, about our company's experiences with
a union which was dominated by Connnunists, and how the Taft-
Hartley Act is inadequate to protect employees and employers and
the ]:)ublic from Connnunist-dominated unions, and my recommenda-
tions on the legislation before you are based on those experiences.
My story is, to some extent, unique.
Senator Butler. I think at this point, if you w'ill excuse the in-
terruption, I would like to read into the record the testimony of J.
Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, before the House Subcom-
mittee on Appropriations, on December 9, 1953. Mr. Hoover said at
that time, and I quote:
In re.i^ard to the infiltration of labor, the Communists regard labor unions as
instruments to be controlled and used to develop the Communist revolution.
A national conference held in August of this year of the Communist Party
reaffirmed the time-honored premise that control of the labor union is of primary
importance to the development of the Communist revolution in this country.
They desi^nt^d, particularly, the automobile industry as being the prime
target because it is well known that it is one of the most vital industries to
our national-defense production.
In New York, the party has set a goal for 65 percent of its membership to
become employed in the basic industries of the country. Instructions were
issued for the reorpmization of the Communist Party in Los Angeles recently
to organize on an industrial basis and party members were requested to secure
work in the basic industries in that area, thus showing the trend of placing
as many members as they can in the key industries of the country — the basic
industries which if disrupted would materially affect our national defense.
Currently, some trade unions operating in the maritime, mining, electrical,
and the communications fields are chief strongholds of the Communist Party.
The Communist Party still maintains its strongest bases in those unions, which
were expelled from the CIO during 1949 and 1950. All of this poses a major
and dangerous threat to our national security, because it involves these vari-
ous unions that were expelled by the CIO. One of those unions represents a
large portion of all employees in the electrical industry of the United States.
Another union that was expelled exercises life-and-death control over our
Pacific coast commerce ; another union has members employed in the production
of copper and zinc which are essential to the national defense efforts.
You may proceed.
Mr. Arens. I wonder if we could ask you what your company
produces ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 177
Mr. Miller. At the particular plant which is involved here, which
is what we call our main plant in Chicago, Illinois, we are primarily
a producer of parts for the automotive industry, and in wartime we
produce a large number of fuzes and then, of course, these parts, also,
go into military production, also.
Mr. Arens. Does your company have defense contracts of any
character ?
Mr. Miller. Oh, yes, we have substantial defense contracts and
still have them.
Mr. Arens. Are they restricted or secret ?
Mr. Miller. Yes; we do. We, also, have in this particular unit
that I am talking about, radar contracts and things of that type ; Gov-
ernment contracts.
Mr. Arens. "VVliat Communist-dominated union has the bargain-
ing rights for your plant ?
Mr. Mn.LER. At the present time, we do not, but I am going to tell
you about the time when the UE was the Communist-dominated un-
ion and had it in our plant. We are one of the few companies that
has been successful in getting rid of a Communist-dominated union.
Senator Butler. You do not now have any mine, mill and smelter
workers as employees ?
Mr. Miller. We have the mine, mill and smelter workers in our
diecasting plant in Chicago. So far as we know, the individuals in
our employ do not include any Communists, although the union, in-
ternational union itself, in my opinion, is Communist-dominated.
Mr. Arens. Would you kindly proceed, then, with your testi-
mony ?
Mr. Miller. As I said, I think our story is unique.
In most instances, it is difficult to show how the Communists gain
control of a local union and the extent that they are successful in
doing so. Now, all of the facts that I am going to give you came
from the sworn testimony given in the famous trial of the 11 Com-
munists before Judge Medina in New York, from sworn testimony
given in a National Labor Relations Board proceeding in which we
were a party, and from testimony supported by affidavits offered in
that proceeding.
In August of 1945, a girl by the name of Florence Hall, a Stewart-
Warner employee, was elected to the governing committee of the
Communist Party in Illinois, and it was known as the Communist
Party State Committee. The party shortly thereafter decided to
make our Stewart-Warner plant in Chicago a concentration ])oint,
and a point of concentration for the Communist Party of Illinois.
Now, Florence Hall, herself, admitted these facts in the trial before
Judge Medina. At that time, Florence Hall was not an officer of
local 1154, UE, which was the union which had the bargaining rights
in our plant at that time, but it was noticed that she interru])ted
executive board meetings in order to tell John Kelliher, the president
of the union, what steps the executive board should take.
We had another employee in the plant at that time by the name of
Garfield Herron. It later developed that he was an FBI agent in-
vestigating communism in our Stewart- Warner plant, and he testified
for the Government in the trial of the 11 Communists before Judge
Medina. He testified concernino; classes in communism that were
178 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
conducted at the home of John Kelliher, the president of our local
union, and elsewhere. These classes ^Yere conducted by Everard Hall,
who was the husband of this Florence Hall.
A number of Communist Party meetings were held with a key
group of Stewart-Warner employees, most of whom were at that
time or later selected as top officials in local 1154. UE.
Mr. Arens. Did Stewart-Warner at that time have defense con-
tracts?
Mr. Miller. We did have defense contracts.
Mr. Arens. Were you working on secret defense material ?
Mr. Miller. We were.
Now, toward the end of 1945 and the beginning of 1946, many
Stewart-Warner employees began to become aware of the fact that
the Communists were trying to gain control of the local union there
in our plant. An employee by the name of William Conner, running
on an anti-Communist platform was elected president in a closed
election, opposing this John Kelliher.
The Communist-dominated executive board, however, refused to let
Conner take over the office of president and it wasn't until after he
had to file a suit in court and until the judge ordered them to do so
that he was able to take office as president. In the meantime, this
girl, Florence Hall, that I spoke about, pulled a sitdown strike in her
department with a statement that the employees would not go back
to work until Conner was taken out of the plant. She and other
Communist leaders threatened non-Communist employees, physically
assaulted them at union meetings, and on one occasion one of the
Communist leaders attempted to push one of the non-Communist
people dow^n the stairs in our plant.
However, in future elections, the Communists again regained com-
plete control of the executive board and the presidency.
In March of 1948. a printed pamphlet published by a committee
for CIO policy in local 1154, UE-CIO, was circulated at the plant
by employees of Stewart-Warner. Now, I have put in the statement,
which I have furnished you, excerpts from that and it gives in rather
full detail the extent that the Communists gained control of the local
and the steps that they wanted. The excerpts state as follows :
The disciplined Communist minority wliich lias seized control of our interna-
tional union, the paid organizing staff, the U. E. News, and our local union
administration has given our union the repulsive reputation of being Communist
dominated, thereby weakening the confidence of the members of their union.
The effective functioning of our union has been hampered. Collective bar-
gaining and membership losses have been misrepresented and minimized by the
administration. Important matters such as the union shop, adequate night-
shift bonus, veterans program, welfare program, etc.. which affect many or all
of our members, have been betrayed in the interest of partisan politics.
The local executive board majority, in flagrant violation of the local constitu-
tion, has instituted a conspiracy against the membership by failing to report
decisions affecting the membership to the local meetings, and by refusing to sub-
mit their actions for approval of the local membership.
Democratic processes within our union have been replaced by methods of
character-assassination and an attitude of arrogance and dictatorship toward the
rank and file. Petitions have been ignored.
Our local newspaper has been turned into the private organ of the Kelliher-
Hall-Communist faction, allowing only praise of the administration, and denying
free expression of opinion.
Regularly constituted committees have been forced into inactivity unless con-
trolled by and for the Communists and their stooges.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 179
Candidates for union oflBce have been supported not on the basis of merit or
ability as union men or women but because of their willingness to accept orders
from the Communist Party. Charter members of our local have been discouraged
into inactivity or purged.
The democratically elected chief stewards have been hounded and attacked
for refusing; to place adherence to the Communist Party program ahead of the
interests of the rank and file. They have been denied the assistance necessary
for efficient prosecution of grievances.
Officers and members who have refused to submit to Communist dictation have
been relegated to second-class membership. They have been prevented from
carrying on legitimate union activities, and have been denied the floor at local
meetings.
Our local treasury has been depleted by contributions to a variety of Com-
munist-front organizations, and by support of Communist activities ; for ex-
ample, the American Youth for Democracy (successor to the Young Communist
League) ; the Chicago Star (Chicago "edition" of the Daily Worker) ; the Pro-
gressive Party (political arm of the Communist Pai'ty), the American Commit-
tee for Protection of Foreign Born (front committee for protection of Commu-
nist aliens), etc.
Repeatedly, the interests of the rank and file members who pay the bills have
been deliberately sacrificed to carry out the pernicious activities of the Com-
munist Party adherents in our union.
Now, continuing, in November of 1948 this same Florence Hall
told a girl by the name of Ruth Hunt, who had just been elected re-
cording secretary of local 1154, and her husband as follows: "We
want to know if you people are willing to come into the Communist
Party. Unless you are a member of the Communist Party, you can't
go anywhere in the union."
Ruth Hunt and her husband told Florence Hall that they would
not join the Communist Party, and Mrs. Hunt was not permitted to
take office as recording secretary because of that.
In January of 1949, Florence Hall told a union membership meet-
ing that she was a Communist and proud of it.
There is a great deal more evidence on how the Communists were
able to control and did control the local union in our plant, and b}'^
their typical Communist activities control all of the union activities
in support of the party line.
On June 1, 1949, our company, as it had a right to under the con-
tract which was then in existence with the UE, terminated that con-
tract. On the same date, we received a demand from Local 1031,
IBEW, AFL, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, for
bargaining rights in our plant. We immediately submitted the ques-
tion of bargaining rights to the NLRB for a decision, for an election.
Because of the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act with respect to
the filing of non-Communist affidavits, local 1154 elected not to file
the affidavits and I don't think that they could have.
Mr. Aeens. That is the UE ?
Mr. Miller. Yes; that is the UE, and it did not appear on the
ballot but it campaigned for a no-union vote. In July, the employees
voted 1,041 to 886 in favor of the IBEW. The National Labor 'Re-
lations Board, however, permitted this man, John Kelliher, the Com-
munist president of the local union, and other individuals, to file
unfair labor practice charges against the company in connection with
the election. Now, although the Board did not
Senator Butler. Just at that point, I would like to know if this is
still taken from the testimony before Judge Medina ?
180 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Miller. This particular fact did not appear before Judge
Medina, and it appeared in the records of the National Labor Re-
lations Board.
Senator Butler. Prior to that time, had John Kelliher been iden-
tified and proven to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Miller. He had been identified in the testimony before Judge
Medina as being a member of the Communist Party, that classes in
communism were conducted at his home. That had appeared in sworn
testimony before Judge Medina.
Senator Butler. But yet the National Labor Relations Board per-
mitted these charges to be filed by a known Communist ?
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Senator Butler. Will you proceed ?
Mr. Miller. The Board did not have any objections to the elec-
tion filed in accordance with its rules, and yet because of these im-
fair labor practice charges which were filed by this Communist, John
Kelliher, they refused to certify the AFL union, which won the elec-
tion, while these unfair labor practice charges were pending.
Now, that was an unprecedented act. Never before insofar as we
could find out, had the Board ever refused to confirm an election be-
cause there were unfair labor practice charges.
Senator Buti.er. Especially would that be the case where it is
known to the Board that the person making the charge was, in fact,
a Communist.
Mr. Miller. In that hearing, we offered to prove that he was a
Communist, and that he was fronting for a Communist local, and that
the local was Communist dominated, and the Board held that that
had no bearing and refused to permit us to offer proof on that subject.
Now, the employees still wished to have the AFL as bargaining
agent, even though the Board would not certify them, and about 6
months later they presented the company with the signatures of a
majority of the employees, asking for representation by the AFL.
We, thereafter, recognized the union, and have since maintained bar-
gainingrelations with them.
The Board, however, continued to prosecute these unfair labor prac-
tice charges, and continued to refuse to certify the IBEW. Even-
tually, the circuit court of appeals dismissed all of the unfair labor
practice charges but it was not until after still another election which
the IBEW won, two-and-a-half years after the first election, before
the IBEW was certified.
Now, during this period, the United States Government, through
the National Labor Relations Board, was fighting the battle of the
individuals fronting for the Communist Party, and the Communist-
dominated union in our plant. The National Labor Relations Board,
as I said, took the position in this litigation the fact that this union,
which a majority of the employees had repudiated, the fact that it
was Communist-dominated was completely immaterial and it had
no bearing whatsoever on any of the issues before it, and the Board
permitted this Communist president of a Communist local, and he was
fronting for tliem, to hold up for two-and-a-half years the certifica-
tion of the non-Communist union that the majority of the employees
wanted.
Mr. Arens. INIay I ask you this question : You are also a lawyer,
are you not ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 181
Mr. Miller. Yes ; I am.
Mr. Arens. If a labor organization is organized b}^ a company, a
company union, will the National Labor Relations Board certify that
organization as a bargaining agency ?
Mr. Miller. It will not.
Mr. Arens. Why not ?
Mr. Miller. Because they say it is dominated by the employer, and
it cannot, therefore, represent the employees.
Mr. Arens. But if an organization is conceived and controlled by
the Communist Party as an agency of the Kremlin in this country,
what is the policy of the National Labor Relations Board so far as
certifying that agency is concerned ?
Mr. Miller. If the affidavits have been filed, the Board will do
nothing. It cannot, under present legislation, evidently do anything
to protect the employees from the Communist-dominated union.
Senator Butler. Mr. Miller, did any agency or department of the
government, at any time during this controversy, speak to you or to
any officer of the company' in connection with withdrawing the Gov-
ernment contracts from the company ?
Mr. Miller. We did not have that situation. The only thing that
occurred was that one or two people, I forget exactly who they were
now, wanted to make sure that they were not working on any Gov-
ernment business.
Senator Butler. So if they had found, if the agency or depart-
ment of the Government you referred to had found that the members
of this Communist local were, in fact, engaged on that work, you
would have been penalized by having that contract taken away from
you, rather than going to the root of the evil and putting the Com-
munists out. Is tTiat right ?
Mr. Miller. It could have happened ; yes.
Mr. Arens. Could I also ask you this : If the NLRB certifies the X
organization as a bargaining agency, is your company obliged to bar-
gain with that X Communist-controlled labor organization?
Mr. Miller. We are, we have no alternative.
Mr. Arens. What if you do not bargain with them, and what if you
just say, "We are not going to bargain with you; you are a Com-
munist" ?
]Mr. JMiiXER. We will be prosecuted by the National Labor Relations
Board through the courts.
Mr. Arens. Will you kindly continue your testimony ?
Mr. Miller. Well, our experiences have convinced us of the neces-
sity for enactment of legislation such as either the Butler bill. Senate
bill 1606 ; or the Goldwater bill. Senate bill 1254.
Senator Butler. I direct your attention to this point, Mr. Miller :
In the bill, S. 1606, as it is presently drafted, it deals only with infil-
tration in labor organizations. Would you be willing that that bill
contain a provision that if an employee or any officer or director or
person in control of the company is known to be a Communist or
Communist dominated, that then those people must be purged before
they can deal with a good union ?
Mr. Mn.LER. I see no objection to that. As a matter of fact, how-
ever, there is no problem that I have heard of, of Communist domina-
tion of employers. It is a little bit like the situation that if my wife
182 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
is sick and I take her to a doctor, the doctor doesn't say, "Well, I will
give both of you medicine." I see no necessity for it. That is the
same reason I see no real necessit}' for the surrgestion that employei-s
likewise file non-Communist affidavits. No employer has any objec-
tion to it, but there isn't the problem there.
Senator Butler. Let me call this to your attention : That there has
been some evidence to the effect that some companies would rather deal
with a Communist-dominated union because by so doing they can get
a better advantage than they can in dealing with a union not Com-
munist dominated.
Mr. Miller. I have no sympath}^ for that position.
Senator Butler. Is there any way that you could suggest that the
Congress could reach that situation ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, by your bill, or the Goldwater bill, which makes
that union ineligible to represent employees. It doesn't leave it as a
question of judgment for the employer as to whether he does or does
not recognize that union. It should be left so that no one has a right
to bargain with that union, and that union does not have any right
to represent employees. I am heartily in favor of the fact that they
should have no rights whatsoever and it should not be left up to the
employer as to whether he does or does not want it.
Mr. Arens. Let us assume that legislation were enacted precluding
the certification by the National Labor Relations Board of an organi-
zation that is found to be Communist dominated. What could be
done, in your judgment, to preclude the organization itself without
certification from contracting with an employer and from engaging
in work, particularly in defense establishments?
Mr. Miller. Well, I think the current bills make these unions ineli-
gible to represent the workers, and I don't think the employer should
have any more rights than anyone else.
Senator Butler. The employer would not be able to deal with
them ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, and I think that you are entirely right in that
particular approach. It shouldn't be a question of advantage to the
employer as to whether or not he wants to. The evil is in the Com-
munist domination, and it should be stamped out completely and it
shouldn't be left as a question as to whether the employer does or does
not wish to do it.
Mr. Arens. You think this is a matter just between labor organiza-
tions and employers, or do you think there is an overriding public
interest here ?
Mr. Miller. It is the public that is interested in this thing.
Mr. Arens. Why is that ?
Mr. Miller. And the Government. The Communist Party is en-
gaged in a conspiracy to overthrow by force the United States Govern-
ment. It is also engaged in a conspiracy to terminate the type of
existence that we have. That is our system. The thing to do is get
at the root of the evil and prevent it from gaining control of this
large segment of our public life, the labor unions.
Senator Butler. You think that they are actually doing what
Mr. Hoover has pointed out they are going to do, and they are putting
in basic industries people who, in a time of emergency, will have a
slowdown or a strike or sabotage or something of the kind and, in
that way, will prevent us from defending oureelves ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 183
Mr. Miller. Absolutely, and as a matter of fact with a handful of
people, I think 20 or 25 people, they did do that and were able to
control a plant which employed 10,000 people during the height
of the war.
Senator Butler, Therefore, as long as you have the bargaining
rights given by the NLRB to a union known to be Communist-
dominated, you just lay yourselves open that much more to the
hazards of their conspiracy ?
Mr. Miller. That is absolutely right.
Communist-dominated unions exist today, and everybody knows it,
and the provisions of the Taft-Hartley law with respect to non-Com-
munist affidavits are of no value because these unions have learned
how to get around them.
Mr. Arexs. May I ask you this question, which is sometimes sug-
gested : Why shouldn't the Government just sta}^ out of it and just
let the unions fight it out with the Communists ?
Mr. Miller. The unions haven't been able to do it.
Mr. Arens. The unions do not have access to security records of
the Government, do they ?
Mr. Miller. Not so far as I know.
Mr. Arens. They do not have the investigatorj?^ facilities available
to the Government, do they ?
Mr. Miller. No.
Mr. Arens. You feel it is a proper province for the Government?
Mr. Miller. It is for the protection of our existence. After all,
the CIO— was it about 1949 ?
Mr. Arens. It was in 1949 and 1950.
Mr. Miller. Took the policy it was going to expel the Com-
munist unions from the CIO. But there are still strong Communist
unions in this country today.
Mr. Arens. And still they are certified by the NLRB?
Mr. Miller. Of course, they are, and the officers of those unions have
filed non-Connnunist affidavits, although nobody believes it. They
are still Communists and thej' are Communist-dominated.
Mr. Arens. You gave an illustration a little while ago, in the
earliest part of your testimony, about a Communist who would call
one of her colleagues on the phone during executive board meetings
and issue directives. That brings to the attention of the subcommittee
the problem which the subcommittee has been wrestling with of the
method by which the Communists could put non-Communists in office
and then act like Edgar Bergen does with Charlie McCarthy and
pull the strings. Have you concerned yourselves with that problem ?
Mr. Miller. Yes. In our local that we had in our plant at that
time, the way that the officers were elected — and this appeared from
testimony given in the NLRB proceedings and from testimony that
was offered — first, there would be a small group of the Communist
Party who would get together and discuss "who shall we have for
the various executive board offices." They would decide who would
be the next officials. Then they would come out of their Communist
Party meetings, and get to a little larger group, who were sort of
sympathizers and who would go along with them, but who were not
necessarily members of the party. Then they would theoretically
bring up the subject for discussion for the first time there, and then
184 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
that little larger group would decide on the same candidates that the
Communist Party had earlier decided upon. Then the larger group
would get further suj^port and they would be the official candidates
of the local, not knowing that the original selection of these people
had been done in a small caucus meeting of Communist Party people
or members.
Mr. Arexs. Is your company empowered under the contract ar-
rangements you have with any of the labor organizations with whom
you deal to fire people that are Communists?
Mr. Miller. We are, at the present time. May I tell you a little
bit about the story of that?
Up until we terminated our contract on June 1, 1949, at that period
of time, we knew that we had some Communist employees in our plant.
We wanted to discharge those employees. We were faced with the
fact that arbitrators in general say that membership in the Communist
Party is not just cause for discharge. That is hard to believe, but that
is what the decisions are. We were
Senator Butler. Just a moment. Whose decisions are those ?
Mr. Miller. I don't recall the names of them.
Senator Butler. Are they independent arbitrators, employed by
companies and unions, to arbitrate their differences ?
Mr. Miller. That is correct. I don't remember the names of the
decisions but you can find them in the labor arbitration reports. We
gave serious consideration to this problem which we knew was con-
fronting us.
Senator Butler. That is a well-established principle.
Mr. Miller. In general, I would say that is the principle, because
arbitrators are not governed as judges are by the rule of stare decisis,
and it is also possible that a new man deciding the thing might do
something. But the general trend is to say membership in the Com-
munist Party just by itself is not a just cause for discharge. Most
union contracts provide that you have to have just cause for discharge.
We did not feel that we would be safe in discharging these Com-
munists because we felt that the net result would be that we would
have to reemploy them by order of an arbitrator and pay them back
pay and so forth and so on. So we could not take any action on that.
Senator Butler. Did you take any action by advising the depart-
ment of Government which had granted the contract that you had
actual Communists working on defense production ?
Mr. Miller. We advised them as to all of the people that we had
and we gave them any information that we had, but at that time and
since then, so far as I know, no department of Government will tell
you that you should discharge an employee and say that you may
quote them as saying so, and giving it as a reason for it. Therefore,
you are left in the same position that you are, and you can't give that
as a justification.
Senator Butler. Do they institute any investigations, or to your
knowledge have any investigations ever been instituted by reason of
notice from you to a department or agency of the Government that
a given person, Mr. X, is a Communist and is working on defense
work?
Mr. Miller. I don't knoAv whether they did or not. I don't know
what went on from there. EvidpTitly, there were some investigations
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 185
o;oin^ on, because it later developed that this man, Garfield Herron,
that I referred to, was an FBI ag:ent workino; in onr plant, although
we didn't even know about it until the day he testified in New York.
Up to June 1, 1949, we didn't feel that we were safe in discharging
anyone who was a Comnnmist. After we terminated our contract in
the fall of that year, at a time when we had no union which had any
contractual relationship, we established a policy that we would not
retain in our employ any employee who was a Communist Party mem-
ber or sympathizer, or who had been such since Pearl Harbor.
We discharged, I think, about 8 or 10 people on that basis. Since
that time, in our contract with the IBEW in that plant, and in our
contract with the lAM in that plant, each representing different
groups of employees, we have retained the right to discharge em-
ployees on the basis of their membership in the Connnunist Party.
But, you see, the trouble is that most employers are not in a posi-
tion where they can establish such a policy because of the fact that
arbitrators will not hold that it is just cause for discharge.
Mr. Arens. The employers also have this problem, do they not,
of not knowing who the Connnunists are, and the employers do not
have access to securitv records and the partv is underground in large
part?
Mr. Miller. In some cases, as in our case, it becomes public
knowledge that certain individuals are Communist Party members.
When a girl like Florence Hall, for example, gets up in a
union meeting and says, ''I am a Communist and proud of it," it
becomes general knowledge. But, there are a gretit many that they
have no knowledge of whatsoever. There are a great many that we
had no knowledge of. But that is whv I think that the bill before
you, I think it is Senate bill 23, Senator IVIcCarran's bill, is important.
It will establish a policy of the United States Government that it is
justifiable to discharge a Communist.
Now, if that policy is established by the United States Govern-
ment, then I think that you will get a complete reversal of the trend
of the arbitration decisions and they will then hold it is just cause to
discharge a Communist. Then, the companies would be in a posi-
tion to protect themselves against this Comnnmist group, one of whose
main purposes is to cause as much discordance as possible between em-
ployer and the employees.
Mr. Arens. Are you conversant with the shop steward system, Mr.
Miller?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. Could you, in just very brief thumbnail sketch, tell
us what the shop steward system is ?
Mr. Miller. The unions in almost all plants have a stcAvard who
is one of the employees who is either selected by the union or elected
by the group, who will represent a certain group of employees, gen-
erally in a department of maybe 35 or 50 employees, and this steward
is the representative of the employees in discussions with the manage-
ment representatives, the foreman or whoever it is, on the problems
arising in that particular group.
Mr. Arens. Does the shop steward report to the leadership of the
labor organization?
JNIr. Miller. Yes.
186 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Aeens. And if the labor organization is Communist controlled,
then the shop steward reports to Commnnists?
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. Is he, in fact, designated by the leadership or is his
appointment in large part determined by the leadership ?
Mr. Miller. In local 1154, UE, the Communist-dominated union
which was in our plant, in general, tried to appoint, or at least direct,
what stewards w^ould be appointed- When the people in a particular
department got too excited about some arbitrary action, why then they
might give in and let them elect one. In the IBEW, AFL, in our
plant today, all of the stewards are elected by the employees in the
group.
Mr. Arens. Did you concern yourselves, or are you now concerned
about the potential for espionage in the various industrial establish-
ments producing defense material which are manned by people under
the discipline of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Miller. It is a constant problem.
Mr. Arens. Do you have any illustrations in mind as to what pre-
sented itself in your plant?
Mr. Miller. Only to this extent : In one of our plants we have secret
material, radar equipment and things of that kind, for the Govern-
ment. We would have Communists who were working not on that
particular material but over in another part of the plant. But you
see, these people know where everything is, and we try to keep the
thing protected, but where you have an employee in the plant who
knows where everything is, it would be so simple for him to go over
where he isn't supposed to be at some other time and discover some-
thing that he shouldn't. We tried to prevent it, but it creates a ter-
rific problem.
Mr. Arens. Have you concerned yourselves with this situation,
whereby agencies of the Government have found that certain labor
organizations are Communist controlled, and at the same time other
agencies of the Government are letting Government contracts, defense
contracts, to establishments in which those Communist-controlled
labor organizations are engaged?
Mr. Miller. That is true, but, as a matter of fact, I don't think
the Government has any otlier choice. You take some of your larger
companies, like (jeneral Electric and Westinghouse, for example, who
have a Communist-dominated union in some of their plants. If the
Government were not to allow General Electric or Westinghouse to
have any contracts, I don't think that they would be able to get some
of the work done that they have to get done.
Mr. Arens. Do you have any concern with respect to the potential
for sabotage, as distinguished from espionage, by Communist-con-
trolled labor organizations engaged in the defense establishments of
this country?
]Mr. Miller. It would be a very simple thing where you have a
nucleus in a particular plant upon giving the word to completely
sabotage the plant or any production in it, because the employee who
has access to the plant can do anything. Nobody could prevent it.
Senator Butler. Mr. Miller, I would appreciate it, if you will, to
point out to the subcommittee any infirmity in any of the legislation
or any comments that you may like to make about any of the
legislation.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 187
Mr. Miller. May I make a couple of suggestions about your bill,
Senator Butler ? Your bill, as I understand it, provides that upon
the filing of a complaint that a particular local is Communist domi-
nated, notice of it is sent to the NLKB and, automatically, the union
is barred from representing the employees while the trial is going on.
Senator Butler. What happens is this : A complaint would be made
and the Subversive Activities Control Board, which has access to the
source material and a lot of material that the ordinary individual does
not have, would find the report to be of substance, or the complaint
to be of substance. Then, the bargaining right would be withdrawn.
Do you think that would be too severe ?
Mr. Miller. I, personally, think it would be a little severe.
Senator Butler. That has been criticized and that may be a very
legitimate objection to the bill. Certainly, we are not wedded to
that, and we have three bills here by which we are trying to find some
solution to a problem, and we would appreciate your telling us what
you think about the problem.
Mr. Miller. I think it is a little severe for this reason : At the pres-
ent time, the Government doesn't do anything. We are going on today
without any protection from the Communist Party. Now, it seems
to me that it is only fair to give whatever union is accused of being
Communist-dominated a full hearing, and an opportunity to present
the facts, before any action is taken. I think that your bill is a little
strong in that way.
There is one other thing that I would like to mention about your
bill. We are particularly sensitive on this question of individuals
fronting for a union, and I don't know whether or not your bill covers
that sufficiently. The Goldwater bill, I think, covers this fronting
thing, but your bill, on page 3, at the end of line 1 says, "such labor
organizations shall be ineligible to act as exclusive bargaining agent
or to become or continue to be," and I would suggest that you consider
adding after those words such words as, "directly or indirectly," or
something like "directly or through individuals acting in concert with
such labor organization."
I take that language from the Goldwater bill, which does cover this
question of fronting.
Our problems arose before the NLRB came in. The UE wasn't
permitted to file any complaints or to do anything before the NLRB,
because they hadn't filed the non-Communist affidavits, but it didn't
make the slightest bit of difference because the Communist president
could do anything that the union could have done. And he was suc-
cessful in holding up the certification of the union that a majority
of our employees wanted. So, you have got to stop anybody acting
for them, as well as the union itself.
Senator Butler. Thank you very much. It was nice of you to
take your time to come here and give us your advice and experience in
this field.
Mr. Arens. The next witness is Adm. Ellery W. Stone.
Senator Butler, Will you please rise ?
Do you solemnly swear, promise, and declare the evidence you give
before this task force of the Internal Security Subcommittee will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Mr. Stone. I do.
188 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
STATEMENT OF ELLERY W. STONE, PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN
CABLE & RADIO CORP., NUTLEY, N. J. (ACCOMPANIED BY
COUNSEL, RUFUS D. McDONALD, OF DAVIS, POLK, WARDWELL,
SUNDERLAND & KIENDL, NEW YORK, N. Y.)
Mr. Arexs. Will you kindly identify yourself by name, residence,
and occupation ?
Mr. Stone. My name is Ellery W. Stone, and my residence is 2
Kingsland Road, Nutley, N. J., and my occupation is president of
American Cable & Radio Corp., a company engaged, through operat-
ing subsidiaries, in the international telegraph business.
Mr. Arens. Will you proceed in your own way to present your
testimony to the subconnnittee ^ We will appreciate it.
Mr. Stone. Thank you. I am grateful for this opportunity to
discuss with you my company's views on how to deal with the problem
of Communist domination of labor unions. The suggested approach
to legislation which I would like to offer today represents, in my
opinion, a new and possibly a more direct approach to this Commu-
nist problem.
It is based upon my conviction that from the point of view of current
need, it is easier and more effective, perhaps even more democratic, to
help the union memberships themselves get rid of their Communist
officials, than it is to legislate the Communists out of the unions
through involved and complicated judicial processes.
Simply stated, I am here today to recommend that the immediate
solution lies in the changing and strengthening of sections 9 (h) of
the present Taft-Hartley Act. This is the short-range objective. I
further believe that concurrently there could well be a long-range ob-
jective to brand certain unions as Communists by utilizing a govern-
ment agency such as the Subversive Activities Control Board. This,
of course, is what is involved, sir, in your own bill. That is the long-
range approach.
Before I go into detail about the American Cable & Radio plan, I
would like to give you a short background about myself and the
organization which I represent.
The American Cable & Radio Corp. and its operating subsidiaries
of Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., the Commercial Cable Co., and All
American Cables & Radio, Inc., are subsidiaries of the International
Telephone & Telegraph Corp. During the war, I served as a rear
admiral on duty with the Navy as Chief Commissioner of the Allied
Control Commission in Italy, with Soviet officers attached to my com-
mand, and I was, also, a member of the Mediterranean Advisory Com-
mission on which sat Connnunists or Soviet diplomats.
I have had some experience, I think I can say, wdth Communist
methods of infiltration.
My appearance today is on behalf of my companies which are en-
gaged in work vital to the national defense and which have been re-
quired in the past to deal with the union publicly labeled as Commu-
nist-dominated. This union, the American Communications Associ-
ation, was expelled by the CIO in 1950 for and here I quote from
the language of the CIO, "consistently following the Communist
l^arty line." Key officers of the ACA have been identified as Com-
numists by witnesses before congressional committees, and ACA of-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 189
ficers, when placed under oath, have resorted to the fifth amendment
and refused to answer the question, "Were you a Communist as of the
time you signed the non-Communist affidavit under the Taft-Hartley
Act?"
Despite the action by the CIO expelling ACA because of its, and
here I quote the CIO language, "subservience to the interests of the
Communist Party and through that party to the Soviet Union," and
despite the fact that key officers of ACA were, thereafter, identified
as Communists by labor witnesses including former ACA members
before congressional committees, and despite the fifth amendment
refuge taken by officers of ACA, ACA as of today continues to repre-
sent a large segment of employees in this sensitive and vital industry.
Mr. Arens. Could you pause there just a moment. Admiral, to
relate for the purpose of the record some of the contracts which the
American Communications Association, this Communist-dominated
labor organization, has at the present time ?
Mr. Stone. Yes ; at the present time they represent the employees
of the Western Union Telegraph Co., both in the metropolitan di-
vision of that company, which means New York City and the sur-
rounding area, and they rei3resent the cable employees of Western
Union Telegraph; namely, the employees engaged in the interna-
tional business of Western Union, similar to the activities of my own
company.
Mr. Arens. They service the cables of messages going overseas to
Europe from the United States ?
Mr. Stone. They handle all of the international messages of West-
ern Union going to and from Europe and going part way to South
America, where they are turned over to a foreign company.
Mr. Arens. May I explore that just a little further for a moment?
It is a fact. Admiral, is it not, that the employees in the American
Communications Association have access to the messages which go
overseas — all messages going over the North Atlantic ?
Mr, Stone. Not all, but all of Western Union's.
Mr. Arens. All of Western Union's messages ?
Mr. Stone. Yes, and all of the messages of the RCA Communica-
tions, which is a subsidiary of the Radio Corp. of America.
Senator Butler. Does that comprehend. Admiral, the leased cables
out of the Pentagon, and other agencies of the Gevernment?
Mr, Stone, Any leases which Government agencies have with
Western Union and RCA and with my company involve necessarily
that our employees monitor and be familiar with what is passing over
those cables, in the normal discharge of their duties.
Senator Butler, In other words, then, the most confidential mes-
sage out of the State Department or the Pentagon or any other agency
or department of the Government going over those cables is moni-
tored by these people who are members of a Communist-dominated
union ?
Mr. Stone, That is correct. But I should like to emphasize that
not all members of these Communist-dominated unions are, by any
means, Communists,
Senator Butler. I was very careful in saying that. They are not
Communists or may not be Conununists themselves, but they are
43903—54 13
190 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
members of a miion that has been proved to be Communist dom-
inated ?
Mr. Stone, That is correct.
Senator Butler. And they handle the secret messages going from
the State Department and the Pentagon and other departments and
agencies of the United States Government ?
Mr. Stone. That is quite true, sir.
Mr. Arens. As a man wlio said you had considerable experience
in Communist techniques, and who obviously appreciates the signifi-
cance of the defense of this Nation, what is your appraisal of a situ-
ation in which the tie lines and lease lines coming out of the Pentagon
are serviced by personnel of a Communist-dominated labor organi-
zation ?
Mr. Stone. Well, I think it is inimical to the security of this coun-
try. It is well known that one of the tenets of the Communist Party
is to have their members astride vital lines of communications, both
shipping and electrical communications, and I referred to some of
these dangers, gentlemen, later in my prepared statement.
Senator Butler. You may proceed in your own way.
Mr. Stone. I do not want to interrupt you.
Although the ACA has not represented the American Cable & Ra-
dio employees since 1948, it recently has exerted an all-out effort to
win back its position as bargaining agent in our company.
On May 28, 1953, a representation election was held among the em-
ployees of American Cable & Radio Corp. and the ACA, having been
accorded by the NLRB, over our strenuous protests, the status of
a legitimate union, was placed on the ballot by NLRB together with
CIO and AFL unions.
Mr. Arens. Would you pause just for a question there which I think
will clear our record? It is a fact, is it not. Admiral, that this com-
mittee in 1951, and again in 1952 released testimony which established
conclusively that the American Communications Association was
dominated and controlled by the Communist Party?
Mr. StonL. I have read all of that testimony, and I could come to
know other communications than what you have just stated, sir.
Mr. Arens. But in chronology of events here, thereafter on May
28, 1958, the National Labor Relations Board placed the name of this
Communist-controlled labor organization on a ballot, right along with
the CIO and AFL unions, for submission to the members, is that
correct ?
Mr. Stone. That is correct, and may I say that in some of the
strenuous protests which I referred to, we quoted from the reports of
this committee. Unhappily, it was to no avail.
To date, the results of this election have not been finally determined,
but I may say that the ballot, the final ballot which was counted only
last week, put the ACA in third place, and if ACA does not appeal
it, it would appear that they will not lie on the runoff ballot, which
in that case would be confined to AFL and CIO communications
unions.
Mr. Arens. That is with what company?
Mr. Stone. My company, sir American Cable & Radio Corp.
Mr. Arens. ACA still has contracts with other companies?
Mr. Stone. They still have contracts with Western Union and RCA.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 191
Nevertheless, my company has been compelled to acknowledge the
compliance status of AGA because our legislative processes have not
yet produced a means to restrict this type of union. I should briefly
explain our operations.
Our tliree subsidiaries in the United States operate a network of
submarine telegraph cables and radio telegraph circuits to and from
most of the principal countries of the world. Some of these coun-
tries are behind the Iron Curtain.
Over these cable and radio circuits flow international telegraph
traffic of all kinds. Our services are used by the public and by agen-
cies of the United States Government, such as the State Department
and the Armed Forces. Our circuits are also used by American con-
cerns engaged in defense work.
Let me explain why the question of national security is so important
with regard to the communications industry.
Our cable and radio facilities are used for defense purposes by var-
ious agencies of the United States Government. Many messages are
sent by these agencies which must be monitored by our employees. If
sent over a leased circuit, the message is cut into a teleprinter for the
purpose of testing and regulating the circuit. In addition to direct
Government business, we also handle many messages to and from
private companies having important defense contracts. In order to
handle these messages properly, our employees must read various mes-
sages concerning shipments and orders of rubber, steel, aircra ft, and
other vital defense materials. Furthermore, we operate what are
known as shore-to-ship radio stations. To insure proper routing of
marine messages, the operators, of necessity, must and do have knowl-
edge of the location of ships at sea in all oceans. Because today,
under shortwave conjmunications, it is possible to work from Long
Island to ships in almost any sea, the consequence is on our trafiic
routing board at South Hampton, for example, the location of hun-
dreds of ships are posted constantly, so we know how to send mes-
sages, whether through a west coast station of ours or through an
east coast station.
In a state of emergency, in order for the Government to function
at all, it must have available to it all international cable and radio
facilities. It cannot afford to risk any possible breakdown or espio-
nage in the operation of these facilities.
I need not point out the necessity for immediate contact with over-
seas ambassadors, and much of the traffic of the State Department
goes over the facilities, I am happy to say, of the three commercial
companies. Western Union, EGA, and American Cable & Kadio.
In the present state of the world, the prompt transmission of vital
communications, without danger of interception or sabotage, is es-
sential. It is equally essential that subversive elements be denied
access to and use of international communication facilities for send-
ing to our enemies abroad intelligence acquired by espionage.
Gentlemen, I turn now to our specific proposals which we should
like to submit for amending the law.
Mr. Arens. Before you do that, may we ask you a question or two
here, please. Admiral?
It has been suggested, or was suggested in the past that after all we
need not be too concerned about this because defense secrets are trans-
192 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
mitted by code or by messenger. Admiral, are there not certain mes-
sages which are not transmitted by code which we would not want
the Commmiists to know about?
Mr. Stone. That is true, and even as to coded messages, it is cus-
tomary, all military services, to intercept ciphered or coded messages
of the enemy, with the expectation and hope of breaking them.
Mr. Arens. Do the codes go over these wires.
Mr. Stone. Certainly.
Mr. Arens. Then, the code is available for interception by the Com-
munists, is that correct?
Mr. Stone. The coded message is.
Mr. Arens. That is what I meant.
Senator Butler. And it is constantly available to give them fresh
opportunities owing to the situations in the world as it goes day by
day, and they can take the cipher and relate it to the event and in that
way it aids them in breaking the code?
Mr. Stone. That is one of the means that all intelligence people use
in breaking coded messages.
Senator Butler. You can take the ciphered message and try to re-
late it to the events of the clay, and if you have many hundreds of
such examples, you are very greatly aided in breaking the code, are
you not?
Mr. Stone. That is quite correct, sir.
Mr. Arens. Is the subcommittee being unduly apprehensive in hav-
ing a concern about this situation where the code of the United States
military is from time to time made available to the Communists via
these tie lines and lease lines which are serviced by people in a Com-
munist-controlled labor organization?
Mr. Stone. No ; I think that you are doing what should have been
done a long time ago, except if I may correct one statement you made,
the code itself, of course, is not available.
Mr. Arens. The coded messages, I mean.
Mr. Stone. That is right, and I think that there is a very great
need to plug up this wide-open gap in our security measures.
Mr. Arens. Just to make the record clear on a point which we have
made from time to time in these hearings, I would like to ask you
this : If Western Union did not bargain with the American Communi-
cations Association, this Communist-controlled labor organization,
and did not permit these people on its plants to use its facilities.
Western Union would be guilty of an unfair labor practice, would
it not?
Mr. Stone. That is correct. I am not a lawyer, but I have had
some experience with the National Labor Relations Board, and my
counsel is sitting at my side, and I am sure he would support my
reply.
The particular suggestions that we should like to make run to sec-
tion 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act. I should liko to , oad what we
would propose. That is that section 9 (h) be amended to read as
follows :
No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting com-
merce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organiza-
tion under subsection (c) of this section, and no complaint shall be issued
pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of
section 10, unless there is on file with the Board and with the regional office
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 193
of the Board where the affiant resides an information affidavit executed con-
temporaneously or within the preceding 12-month period by each officer of
such labor organization and each person who is in a position substantially to
direct, dominate or control any national or international labor organization
of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit. The information affidavit shall
contain the following questions and information :
(o) Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party
in the United States of America or any other country or of any Communist
Party subdivisions, subsidiaries or affiliates?
(ft) Are you now, or have you ever been a member of a Fascist, Nazi or
totalitarian organization?
(c) Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization, as-
sociation, movement, group or combination of persons which :
1. Advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government
by force or violence ;
2. Seeks to alter the form of government of the United States by un-
constitutional means?
(d) Are you now, or have you ever been a member of, or associated with, any
of the organizations designated by the Attorney General of the United States
as totalitarian. Fascist, Communist or subversive?
If your answer to any of the above questions is "Yes," state below the names
of all such organizations, associations, movements, groups, or combinations of,
persons and dates of membership. Give complete details of your activities
therein and malfe any explanation you desire regarding your membership or
activities therein.
The provisions of section 35 A of the Criminal Code shall be applicable ia
respect to such information affidavits.
A proposed section 9 (h) (2) is:
It shall be the obligation of all labor organizations to furnish to the mem-
bers of such labor organizations copies of all such information affidavits at
the time the information affidavits are placed on file with the Board.
Section 9 (h) (3) :
If it is found, after an investigation conducted by the Board, that ah officer
of a labor organization or a person who is in a position substantially to direct,
dominate or control such labor organization has provided an affirmative answer
to one of the questions in the information affidavit indicating membership any-
time after June 25, 1950, or has su;bmitted any false statement to the Board, the
Board shall order such labor organization to remove such person within 30 days
from the date of such order, from such office or position. If the labor organiza-
tion submits proof, satisfactory to the Board, that it has complied with the
Board's order within the required period it shall be considered to be in compli-
ance with this section. If the Board finds that the labor organization has not
complied with its order, the Board shall find that the affidavit is invalid and
that such labor organization is not in compliance with this section.
Those constitute the modifications of section 9 (h) of the present
act which we desire to submit. I would like to follow with a short
discussion of what I think the effect would be.
Senator Butler. Would you proceed, please?
Mr. Stone. Under our plan, all officers, all officials and leaders of
labor organizations, each year, must fill out under oath, an informa-
tion affidavit. There are four basic questions which are asked in this
affida\at, as follows :
1. Are you now or have you ever been a Conmiunist ?
2. Are you now or have you ever been a Nazi, Fascist or member
of a totalitarian organization ?
3. Do you now or have you ever belonged to an organization advo-
cating the overthrow of this government by force and violence ?
4. Do you now or have you ever belonged to any of the organiza-
tions on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations ?
194 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
No union shall be considered in compliance with the labor law unless
its official representatives and leaders have appropriately filled out
and filed the information affidavit with the National Labor Relations
Board.
Our suggested amendment recommends that it will be the obligation
of labor organizations to furnish each individual member copies of all
the information affidavits which are placed on file wdth the Board. It
is our belief that union members are entitled to know if their leaders
and officials are presently and/or have been in the past associated or
affiliated with any Communist or subversive organization or move-
ment. Each union should, therefore, be required to disseminate to all
its members copies of the information affidavits so that these members
may be able to evaluate for themselves properly the motives and back-
gi'ounds of their leaders.
In my judgment, the administration of this law would develop
along the following lines:
1. It should be expected that in most cases the questions will be
answered in the negative. Certainly, the bulk of the unions in this
country are not Communist-dominated. Our suggested amendment
requires that the Board reach a finding after it has conducted an in-
vestigation into the validity of each information affidavit which has
been submitted and filed. The Board's decision in the case where all
answers are negative would be to consider the affiant as being in com-
pliance with section 9 (h) as modified, unless, after an investigation,
the Board finds any of the answers to be false.
2. If a union officer or leader gives answers which are untruthful,
then he is subject to prosecution under section 35 A of the Criminal
Code. In the event that a false answer is given, then his union shall
have 30 days in which to disassociate the representative from his posi-
tion with the union. I am not advocating that he be thrown out of the
union, simply that he be removed from office and thus not be in a posi-
tion to control the affairs and activities of the union. If the union
does not do so within 30 days, then the Labor Board shall hold that
this labor organization is not entitled to rights guaranteed by the
labor law.
3. If an officer or leader of a union answers that since June 25, 1950,
he has held membership in or has current association and affiliation
with the Communist Party or Fascist, Nazi or totalitarian organiza-
tions, then his union shall have 30 days in which to disassociate him
from his position. We have fixed an earlier date than that of the affi-
davits in our suggested amendment because we believe that the central
weakness in section 9 (h) as it is now interpreted is that it merely
requires an official to state that he is not a Communist as of the very
moment when he signs the affidavit.
Now, the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Olney, last year gave
testimony before the Senate Labor Committee which is very revealing
on this point. We lielieve that by giving the Labor Board authority to
base its investigation on an earlier fixed date, there will be prevented
a recurrence of the situation which presently permits labor leaders to
allege resignation from the Communist Party immediately prior to
the signing of the affidavit in order to be in compliance with sec-
tion 9 (h).
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 195
At the same time, this provision would not result in the government
penalizing the labor leader who was a Communist, subversive or
totalitarian prior to June 25, 1950, and who ceased being a member
of such organizations before that date.
4. If a labor leader or official admits to membership in the Com-
munist Party or other listed organizations prior to June 25, 1950, it
would be the responsibility of the individual union members within
his own union to decide whether or not they desired to be representeri
by such a person.
It is their decision to make, and who else can better judge, whether
an individual, formerly a member of the Communist Party, has cor^-
pletely divorced himself from the tenets of communism and genuinelv
accepted democratic beliefs, than the members of such an individual's
union.
This is the fundamental structure of the amendment which we ar(i
oflFering for your consideration. I have tried briefly to outline for
you the objectives of our suggested amendment.
The situation today, gentlemen, as I understand it, is that many
members of unions cannot be certain that leaders of their unions are,
in fact. Communists, although they liave been publicly accused of
being Communists. Apparently, the common answer of such a labor
leader is to say that the Government recognizes our union and we have
all the privileges that any other union has, and we cannot be what
our enemies allege us to be. He never appears before his members as
a confessed Communist, even at some time in the past.
The membei-s, in my judgment, are honestly confused because they
have the record of the Labor Board endorsing these people as in com-
pliance with the law. My view is that our suggestion will at least put
all of the facts before the members. If the Communist leader perjures
himself, the Government can step in. But, all of the facts are put
before the members, and they can decide whether this labor leader has,
in fact, reformed and is truly deserving of their support as an officer
of their union.
In conclusion, I believe that Americans do not really want to be
represented by Communist or Fascist leaders and this includes those
many thousands of union people now represented by the so-called left
wing unions because of the present weaknesses of section 9(h).
It is my conviction that the solution to the problem of Communist
domination of unions will depend largely on the extent to which the
Congress of the United States adopts legislation which will provide
the tools with which American labor can free itself from Communist
domination. The proposed legislation which we are offering today
will, in our opinion, assist union members themselves if they wish to
get rid of presently underground Communist leaders.
At the same time. Senator Butler, I do support the long range ob-
jective of the bill which you have introduced. I see nothing incongru-
ous in having the long-range approach made through the Subversive
Activities Control Board as you have proposed, together with a more
short-range, and I think a more expeditious approach to the problem
as I have proposed.
That completes my testimony.
Senator Butler. Thank you, sir. This bill and all of this legisla-
tion is devoted to one thing only and that is to get communism out of
196 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
the labor organizations. I wholeheartedly agree with you, and if I
thought that the labor organization could do that of its own volition,
I would never think of introducing a bill in Congress for that purpose.
It just seems to me that in the years since 1949 and 1950, since these
Communist unions were ejected by the CIO, progress has not been
made toward removing them from the bargaining position under the
NLRB, which they today enjoy.
It seems to me that there is an overriding public interest there that,
possibly, the Congress will have to step in and do something about.
I would be the last one to have any legislation if the unions themselves
could handle this situation. I look upon these bills as a tool in the
hands of the union to be used by the labor organizations themselves,
for the purpose of doing what we all want to do.
Mr. Stone. I quite understand the objective, and I find no fault.
Senator, with the approach, but I suggest that one of the reasons we
have made so little progress since 1949 and 1950 is the essential weak-
ness of section 9 (h) , as drafted. It was my hope that some modifica-
tion of this type could eliminate that weakness.
Senator Butler. Admiral, we will certainly study that.
Now, I want once more to make it perfectly clear for this record
that it is your opinion that you do have today encoded messages
going out of the Pentagon and out of the State Department and other
offices of Government — there are messages of a secret character and
messages in code that are being exposed to the enemy ?
Mr. Stone. There is no question about it, sir, and I cannot empha-
size it strongly enough.
Senator Butler. Thank you very much.
The subcommittee will stand in recess until a date to be announced
next week.
(Whereupon, the subcommittee recessed at 11 : 30 a. m., Friday,
February 19, 1954, subject to call.)
SUBYEESIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOE
OKGANIZATIONS
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1954
United States Senate,
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration
OF THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal.
Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington^ D. G.
The task force of the subcommittee met at 10 a. m. in room 457,
Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler (chairman of the
task force) presiding.
Present: Senators Butler (presiding), Jenner (chairman of the
subcommittee) , Welker, and Eastland.
Present also: Richard Arens, special counsel; Edward R. Duffy,
professional staff member; Frank W. Schroeder, profeessional staff
member.
Senator Butler. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Witness, will you please rise and be sworn? In the presence
of Almighty God, do you solemnly promise and declare that in this
hearing before the task force of the Subcommittee on Internal Secu-
rity of the Committee on the Judiciary, to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Drummond. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HAROLD DRUMMOND, KELLOGG, IDAHO
Senator Welker. Your name is Harold Drummond ?
Mr. Drummond. That is right.
Senator Welker. You reside at Kellogg, Idaho ?
Mr. Drummond. That is right.
Senator Welker. And have for how many years ?
Mr. Drummond. For 48 years.
Senator Welker. In fact, you were born there ?
Mr. Drummond. That is right.
Senator Welker. And your occupation ?
Mr. Drummond. I am an automobile dealer.
Senator Welker. I think it is safe to say, Mr. Chairman, that
the witness and I have been friends since our childhood days, having
entered the University of Idaho together. It has been a friendihip
that has lasted all these years.
Mr. Drummond, are you identified with any association which has
for its purpose the combating of communism or subversive influences
within our country ?
197
198 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. DRuaiMOND. I am, Senator. Would you like to have me de-
scribe the association ?
Senator Welker. Wliat is the name of the association?
Mr. Drummond. The association is called The Shoshone County
Anti-Communist Association, Inc.
Senator Welker. Wliere is the principal place of business of this
corporation ?
Mr. Drum]mond. At Kellogg, Idaho.
Senator Welker. Now will you describe for the committee the
industries of Kellogg, Idaho, and surrounding terrain ?
Mr. DRUisrMOND. Our principal industry in Kellogg and the sur-
rounding terrain is mining. In our district locally our chief minerals
are lead, silver and zinc, with some other minerals produced as by-
products.
In the area near to us in western Montana, of course, is the corner
area as well as lead and zinc. To the west of us, in eastern Washing-
ton we also have a mining area of some extent in the Metaline district.
Senator Welker. For the purpose of the record, is it a true assump-
tion that in the area in which you live it is commonly known as the
Coeur d'Alene district, which is the mining district of the State of
Idaho, the principal mining district ?
Mr. Drummond. That is correct.
Senator Welker. And it has produced huge volumes of the metals
named by you for many, many years?
Mr. Drummond. That is correct.
Senator Welker. Will you be kind enough to name to the commit-
tee the principal operators of the different mines?
Mr. Drummond. In the Coeur d'Alene district, we have the Bunker
Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Co., which is regarded
as one of the world's largest producers of lead, zinc, and silver. We
have the Sunshine Mining Co., which is the largest producer of silver
in the United States, producing somewhere near a fourth of all the
silver produced in the country. We have the Day mines, which are
composed of several properties, the American Smelting & Eefining Co.,
which has the Morning mine at Mullan and the Page mine at Kellogg.
Then we have numerous smaller properties.
Senator Welker. Have you mentioned the Hecla ?
]Mr. Drummond. And the Hecla IMining Co. I forgot to mention
that. I am sorry.
Senator Welker. The Hecla is a large producer?
Mr. Drummond. The Hecla is a large producer.
Senator Welker. You have identified yourself as president of the
Shoshone County Anti-Communist Association. Could you give the
committee a brief background as to why the committee was formed,
when the association was formed, and its general purpose? _
Mr. Drummond. Yes. In August of 1051 there was growing con-
cern in our district about the influx of communism, not only in our
labor unions but among businessmen as well. I want to make that
point clear, because our association has been accused of being anti-
labor and antiunion, which we are not, and we are not picking on
labor unions particularly.
I want to make my position clear here today that we regard at least
95 percent of the men in our unions as good, loyal Americans, and
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 199
we are only after the 5 percent who are Eeds. I should like at this
time to read this very short letter which was written on October 5,
1951, to Harvey Wilson, who at that time was State commander of the
DAV.
Senator Welker. We will suspend for a moment.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Drummond. The reason I want to read this is because this let-
ter outlines our aims and purposes at that time, and I want to show you
what they were then and what they still are.
Mr. Harvey Wilson,
Wallace, Idaho.
Dear Harvey : In line vfith our recent <'onversation regardins; the anti-Commu-
nist movement in our district, I am submitting a brief outline of the organiza-
tion and accomplishments to date. The spark which ignited the fire in this
district was, as you know, a radio broadcast, sponsored by the leaders of Mine,
ISIill, and Smelter Workers local at Wallace. This broadcast featured a report by
Mr. Jack Blackwell. recording secretary of Wallace Local 14, International Union
of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers on his trip to Europe, along with 10 others,
to study labor conditions. It seems that about 98 percent of the time was
spent in Russia and Mr. BlackwelFs report was the most pro-Soviet propaganda
that any of us had ever heard or ever expect to hear. This brazen and cocksure
broadcast has acted as a boomerang to the Communists and their fellow travelers
and party-line followers in this area.
Senator Butler. May I interrupt at that point? Do you have a
copy of the broadcast?
Mr. Drummond. I have a tape recording of it here, and also type-
written copies of it.
Senator Butler. I would like at the end of that letter to have it
made a part of the record, the contents of that broadcast.
Mr. Drummond (reading) :
This was more than the good Americans in this district could stomach and
as a result a group of men met to decide how they could best offset this
diabolical attack on our way of life. It was decided that they would inaugurate
a radio program to point out the fallacies of the Blackwell report and to educate
the people as to communism in the various phases of our activities, our schools,
churches, Government, home, and labor unions.
The Shoshone County Civic Group was the organization formed to carry on
this work. This group was successful in instituting this program and augmented
their radio work with newsiiaper and word of mouth propaganda. It is worthy
of note that this group was composed of people from all walks of life, laboring
men, merchants, teachers, clerks, professional men, salesmen, and so forth.
Blackwell's pro-Soviet propaganda has united people as nothing else could
have. It seemed that what was heard coming from our local radio station
could not happen here. Peoi^le could hardly realize that it was a fact that
Communist I'arty line tactics has become so brazen that they could be practiced
before our very eyes. The Shoshone County Civic Group expanded rapidly to
cover the towns in the Coeur d'Alene mining area. So as to identify the move-
ment without doTibt as to its purpose, the name was changed to the Shoshone
Anti-Communist Group. Practically every civic, fraternal, service, and religious
organization in the area has now affiliated itself with the movement and have
representatives at every meeting. I should like to definitely state now that the
Shoshone Anti-Communist Group —
By way of explanation that was the name at that time. It has since
been changed to the Association, Inc. —
^(^^
I should like to definitely state now that the Shoshone Anti-Communist Group
has as its sole pi:rpose to oppose communism wherever it is found, in the
schools, in the church, in government, in the home, or in labor unions. We are
an action group and not a debating society. We do not discuss politics or
religion or whether you are a union man or nonunion man. We are not anti-
labor, not antiunion, but anti-Communist. To that end we are dedicated.
200 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
It goes on to tell about a tremendous parade we had, a 7-mile-long
parade of automobiles in Anti-Communist Week, whereby the mayors
of three towns dedicated the week of September 23, 1951, as Anti-
Communism Week.
In closing, Harvey, I should like to stress one fact. W'e know that the
Commies are strong in our schools, in our churches, and government and labor
unions. We know they are a subversive element dedicated to the overthrow of
our government. Knowing these things to be true they can be eliminated only
by the united action and effort of all of us. Our strongest support can come
from the service organizations. Therefore, I ask each and every one to do your
utmost to oppose this evil force which is trying to destroy our way of life.
Remember, don't be unconscious, be Commie-conscious.
Senator AVelker. Now, Mr. Drummond, you have related the in-
stance of the 7-mile parade. For the purpose of the record and to
enlighten the committee, would you tell us the population of the cities
in the Coeur d'Alene mining area that you have heretofore described?
Mr. Drum?iiond. The total population of the three cities could be
approximately fifteen or sixteen thousand people.
Senator Welker, And the principal cities?
Mr. Drummond. Wallace, Kellogg, and Mull an.
Senator Welker, Wallace, Kellogg, and Mullan.
The Chairman has said that at this point there be inserted in the
record the Jack Blackwell radio speech that started your organiza-
tion's work. Do you have that, so that you can hand it to the reporter ?
Mr. Drummond. I do.
Senator Butler. That shall be made a part of the record at this
point.
(The document referred to is read in the record below.)
Senator Wfxker. I was very interested in your statement, Mr.
Drummond, that you were definitely not antiunion. And I take it
that your testimony here is not given for the purpose of aiding one
union to combat or to infiltrate a certain industry as against another.
Is that a correct assumption ?
Mr. Drummond. That is a fact.
Senator Welker. Your entire work is dedicated to the fight against
communism, not only in the mining industry but wherever it is found ?
Mr. Drummond. That is correct.
Senator Welker. You have mentioned the union that controls or
at least controls most of the labor in the Coeur d'Alene. Would you
name that union again for us?
Mr. Drummond. The union which is bargaining organization in the
Coeur d'Alene area is the International Union of Mine, Mill, and
Smelter Workers.
Senator Welker. And about how many members belong to that
union ?
Mr. Drummond. Are you speaking of our local area?
Senator Welker. Yes.
Mr. Drummond. If I answered that question, Senator, it would be
merely a gness. I don't know what their membership is.
Senator Welker. Well, you tell us about the number in the entire
mining district that you are familiar with?
Mr. Drummond. I would say perhaps they have a membership of
about a thousand.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 201
Senator Welker. Wliat areas are controlled by the Mine, Mill and
Smelter Union ? It not only controls the labor in the Coenr d'Alene
area of Idaho that you described, but is it a fact that it controls at
least a portion of the mining industry in Montana, western Montana,
and eastern Washington ?
Mr. Drummond. That is a fact, yes.
Senator Welker. And are there any other areas within the State
of Idaho ?
Mr. Drummond. It is the bargaining agent for some properties in
southern Idaho. I believe at Hailey, Blackbird mine, and I am not
sure whether it is Stibnette mine or not, which is closed, but I believe
it is.
Senator Welker. No, I do not believe Stibnette mine has ever been
unionized. I am quite certain that they do not represent the workers
at Stibnette.
Mr. Drummond, based upon your research, do you happen to know
how the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Union came into existence?
Mr. Drummond. I know some of the history of it. Would you like
to have me start from the beginning of it ?
Senator Welker. Yes.
Mr. Drummond. As I understand it, the first union in the Coeur
D'Alene area was the Western Federation of Miners, which was
formed way back around 1893. And then the Western Federation
of Miners developed gradually into a local union which eventually
passed out of existence. And then I believe, during the NRA of
1935, another local union was formed which affiliated with an AFL
group and then later on became affiliated with CIO and in 1950, the
International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers was, as
you know, expelled from CIO because of its Red activities. At the
present time it has no other affiliation.
Senator Welker. Tell us a bit more about Jack Blackwell. When
he made his trip to Russia; was he an officer of the lodge?
Mr. Drummond. He was recording secretary of local 14 at Wallace,
Idaho, which has since joined with local 18 at Kellogg to become one
local.
Senator Welker. And where is Mr. Blackwell now?
Mr. Drummond. I believe Mr. Blackwell at the present time is in
the metaline mining area, in eastern Washington.
Senator Welker. Do you know whether or not he is connected with
the union there ?
Mr. Drummond. He is.
Senator Welker. In an official capacity ?
Mr. Drummond. That I cannot answer. I don't know if he is an
official over there or not, but I know that he is still in the union.
Senator Welker. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be highly enlight-
ening to the committee and to the chairman of our full committee,
who is here, and the chairman of this task force, yourself. Senator
Butler, if it could be read into the record the radio speech that Mr.
Blackwell gave. I do not know whether it is going to take too long,
but I have had occasion to read it.
I think it should be read into the record.
Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. Counsel will read the ad-
dress of Mr. Blackwell.
202 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr, AjtENS. Off the record.
( Discussion off the record. )
Senator Butler. Was Blackwell at that time an officer in the
union ?
Mr. Drummond. Yes. He was recording secretary of local 14.
Senator Butler. So you had a forum consisting of 3 union men,
2 union officers and 1 counsel to the local union ?
Mr. Druimmond. Correct. I have a tape recording of it also.
Mr. Arens. (reading) :
Radio Talk by Jack Blackwell
The followins report is presented by Jack Blackwell who recently returned
from Europe where he was a guest of European labor unions. KWAL, is non-
partisan and nonpolitical and does not necessarily endorse the statements or
opinions expressed in the following discussion. The program is transcribed.
(Bill jMoore speaking.)
Several months ago we of the Hard Rock Miners Union were invited to send
a member of our iniion to Europe with a delegation that had been invited to
visit France and Italy and that they might also visit the Soviet Union. This
invitation was extended by the General Confederations of both France and Italy,
the dominant labor organizations of these countries. Although the time was
short in which to organize such a big project, we felt that here was a real oppor-
tunity to see for ourselves if the conditions in these countries were as described
by the newspapers we read and the radio programs we hear daily over our favorite
stations. We also realized that if we were to send a member of our union then
we had to enlist the support of other labor groups in the Inland Empire and based
on these conclusions we asked the woodworkers union of Coeur d'Alene and
numerous A. F. of L. and railroad union representatives to meet with us and see
if we could accept this invitation. Needless to say, all of us present enthusiasti-
cally decided to pool our efforts and resources to the eud that we sent such a
delegate on this extended trip. We then proceeded to select someone, who in
our opinion, would meet the many requirements that such a delegate would have
to meet. Because of the nature of the countries to be visited and the types of
social, economic, and political concepts that pi'evail in these countries we con-
cluded that anyone who liad preconceived political or social views along socialistic
lines couldn't l)ring back a convincing report of what he heard and observed.
We believe we reached an ideal choice in the person of Jack Blackwell, record-
ing secretary of the Wallace Miners' Union and president of the Northwest
Council of our union. We believed this to be so because Jack Blackwell has never
identified himself with any political group nor has he ever indicated any leftist
leanings or lean to any right wing group. Jack, to us, has always been a guy
who freely and honestly expressed his views as he saw them, and it is for this
quality that we finally decided that he should be our member on this delegation.
In preparing his presentation Jack had to carefully con.sult all of his notes to
determine the best way to make this report. He finally selected a question and
answer method as the best way to pose the many questions that are asked dally
on every street corner. I have listened to many of the experiences he encountered
on this trip and I am personally convinced that the answers you are about to
hear are made in the best spirit of Jack, that they are honest and straight forward
as he heard and observed them. Since Tom Lynch, our counsel from Spokane
is with us today, .Tack requested that Tom and I ask the prevailing questions that
are on most people's minds. I take great pleasure in presenting to our listening
audience. Jack Blackwell.
Jack Blackwell. Good evening ladies and gentlemen and members of mine-
mill. I will answer all questions to the best of my ability as to what I observed
and heard on this trip.
Tom Lynch. What countries did you visit on this tour?
Jack Blackwell. I visited France, Poland, Russia, and Italy. I was in four
other countries besides. I was in Germany, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Aus-
tria in transit.
Bill Moore. Jack, how did you find conditions in regard to wages and to cost
of living? In other words, what was the standard of living for the working
class ■.'
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 203
Jack Blackwell. We found wages adequate to the cost of living. Here in tlie
United States we find high rent and high clothing prices and high food prices.
We also found the same conditions there in Russia, especially. They had high
food costs and high clothing costs, but their rent was very cheap. But, their
wages w^ere adequate to keep care of all the people that were working. In France
and in Italy we found the wages lower than the standard of living was set.
Therefore, we found poverty and hunger in those two countries.
Tom Lynch. What do tlie people of France and Italy think of us?
.Jack Blackwell. Us as a people they think we are all right, but us as a
government, dominating their country, they have no use for us. They have
signs all over France, "Americans, why don't you go home." It seems as though
everything we're doing for them is not benefiting the working people. In Italy
the same exists except for the signs. Those people there were beaten during
the war and they don't express their opinions such as most of the people in
France.
Bill Moore. What does the average person think of the Marshall plan?
Jack Blackwell. Everybody we talked to in regarding labor they didn't
think very much of it— they^in fact they said that it wasn't helping the work-
ing people at all. It was helping capitalists in their countries. I talked to
telephone operators, models, department-store workers and I told them who
I was and what I represented and they came out and said that it wasn't help-
ing them. The plants — the people working in industries and plants and they
were very much against it because it was cutting down all their industries.
ITiey were getting all these machines over there on the market already manu-
factured, therefore, cutting people out of labor. That's the main reason, I
suppose, that they don't like the Marshall plan.
Tom Lynch. You mentioned Russia as one of the countries you visited, did
you have any difficulties getting through the iron curtain?
Jack Blackwell. Well, we had to laugh about that. Tlie only difficulty we
encountered was in getting a taxi and going over to the Russian Consul and get-
ting our passports and telling them that we wanted to go in there and survey
labor conditions in Russia.
Bill Mooke. How long were you in Russia, Jack?
Jack Blackwell. We were there approximately 3 weeks, 23 days to be
exact.
To^[ Lynch. Did you talk to the common people there or to the "big shots"?
Jack Blackwell. We talked to everybody. When we first went in there, we
were acquainted with the leaders and they gave us their system of organiza-
tional procedure from the top to the bottom and then we visited the different
plants on our agenda through Russia. And we talked to thousands of people
and we picked them out from the crowd here and there. We ran into lots of
people who spoke our language.
Bill Moore. You say you visited the plants there. Did you talk to the workers
on the job?
Jack Blackwell. Yes, we talked to — in every plant we were in we had in-
terpreters, of course, and we also had on this delegation members who could
speak French, Polish, German, Italian and, of course, English. And in these
plants we met several people that could speak these different languages, except
the Italian language — we didn't rind anybody in Russia that could speak the
Italian language. A very great number of them could speak English, German,
and French and when we found out they could speak through one of our dele-
gates why, we contacted these people and hung back from the interpreters and
we asked' them questions and we got the same answers from them as we got
from our interpreters. We — we put the things together and compared notes all
the way through and in every plant and every city we were in, why that's the
answers we received.
Tom Lynch. This doesn't sound much like the items you read in the leading
newspapers. Tell me, did you visit places of your own choosing or was this a
conducted tour?
Jack Blackwell. When we first went in there they asked us where we wanted
to go. We were sunirised. We thought, too, that they would show us the cities
of their choosing. So we picked from different cities where we studied on the
basic industries of Russia and we picked four basic cities where we knew that
they had industrial plants in those cities. And they asked us how long we in-
tended to stay. We said 2 weeks. And they said, "sorry, — you won't be able
to see all those cities," so we said we might be able to extend our stay a few
days — it was just about a must that we owed to our people who sent us over
204 SUB\ ERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
here to see txese different industries because they represent — everyone of those
cities represent a business or a trade that we're in.
Bill Moore. How were you treated by the people there?
Jack Black well. We were shown nothing but respect and kindness aU
tlirough Russia. In fact, I've never seen a people any place in any country
that I've ever been in, and I've been from Japan now clear over to Russia. I
never seen anybody who showed the consideration that the people do for us.
They heartily hate our Government, we know that, but as far as the working
people and the common people in the United States, they like and they love.
Tom Lynch. How did you find wages and the living standards of the people
in Russia?
Jack Blackwell. Well in wages, we have to break that down. They get
paid by rubles ; a ruble is a quarter of the American dollar. And the lowest
wages we found were 600 rubles a month, and they were sweepers, and they
wei'e told people drawing a pension of half of their — -of half to 100 percent of
their former wages, which would run according to what they did, of course, but
their average wage was around a thousand rubles, which would be §200 a month.
We did run into people that — working people, mind you ; I don't know what the
leaders received — but the working people we talked to, some people made aai
high as $1,700 a month and the average all through the country, though, was
around $250 a month, which was very much higher than our standard of liv-
ing. And they also have banks over there which the money they have left they
deposit in the bank, and they can do anything they want with that money.
Bill Moore. What do the Russian people think of us?
Jack Blackwell. The Russian people like us. I stated that once before,
that their feeling for us is nothing but respect.
Tom Lynch. Now, do the Russians have a secret police comparable to the
Gestapo of Germany prior to World War II?
Jack Blackwell. Everybody is going to say this was a conducted tour ; we
were directed here and we were directed there ; I know that ; but in all the
places we were we made it a point to go out at all hours of the day, all places
we were we made it a point to go out at all hours of the day, all hours of the
night by ourselves, go through the town and talk to people we thought we could
converse with, some places we were fortunate enough to find people who could
speak English or one of the other languages we could speak. But usually
when we ran into children between 14 and 16 and 17 years old — of age — they,
a lot of them, spoke English ; and, as far as the police were concerned, we
never saw anybody following us around. And the police in that country there,
they operate without any guns. They're standing out there on the streets and
corners and directing traffic, and they don't even pack a gun. When they find
somebody violating a law or misdemeanor, why, they just go up and speak to
them ; they never raise their voice, never raise their hand or shake their fist in,
their face or point their finger at them, or anything like that. I saw one
trafiic violation, and we just stood there and watched this guy go over to him.
And he walked over thei-e and put his hands behind his back and was standing
there talking to him. When the light changed he nodded his head and the
fellow took off.
Bill Moore. We're vitally interested in the mining industry in this area. Did
you visit any of the mines in Russia?
Jack Blackwell. I was very unfortunate in this respect toward our hard-
rock mines. They were up in the north of Russia, and we never got to go into
that country. But they did make it possible for me to go to Tula- — that is about
122 miles south of Moscow — to visit a coal mine. Not being a coal miner or ever
being in one in the United States, I can't exactly give a true opinion of the
difference in the coal mines here and there, but what I did see there, this mine
Vv'as about 180 feet deep, and the first thing I noticed was the bulkheading in
the drift I went in. For about 200 feet it was made of brick ; it was all bricked
over and whitewashed vei'y clean ; and from there on it was all timbered ; and
we visited about four different headings ; and each heading there were men
working there. And, in fact, in this mine there was about 8 or 10 percent women
Avorking. And the miners are the highest honored workers in all the Soviet-
dominated countries — Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and in any country that
are under the Soviet rule.
Tom Lynch. Well, how are working conditions there ; was there a speedup,
or just what was the true working conditions?
Jack Blackwell. In every plant we went in we never saw anything that
looked like speedup with the exception of one bakery. And there a woman — this
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 205
was 98 percent vvomeu working there — was sitting down taking bread off a belt
system and putting tliem in another conveyor running toward the oven, and she
was working fairly fast, but she worked 1 hour and then she rested an hour and
she got paid for S hours' work. And the shoe factory we went into, before we
went in there this shoeman who was with us, when he was told it was on a con-
veyor system he said, "Boy, the people in America sure would never stand for
anything like that." But, when we went back in there to look at it and when we
came out he said it was one of the best operated shoe factories he had ever been
in in his life, and the workers have plenty of room, and they don't have to work
fast. If they happen to miss a shoe while standing there talking, as they were
doing to us — we stopped the workers right there and talked to them — why, this
piece goes down around the conveyor and comes back to them, the pair of shoes
that they'd missed.
Bill Moore. I understand that there are no strikes in Russia. Is it against
tlie law to strike? Well, what is the reason for this?
Jack Blackwell. No ; it's not against the law to strike, and it's true they
don't have any strikes there. We asked that question, too. We couldn't under-
stand that, because our system of economy seems to call for strikes and trouble
over hei'e, but it doesn't over there.
(Next question missing on tape.)
Jack Blackwell. It's true nobody is forcing them to go to school, but we did
see competent doctors and nurses ; in fact, in every plant that we were in, they
each had clinics to large hospitals in their plants according to the number of
workers there. They had nurseries there. The women that were working
on the jobs, they could go see their kids at certain hours ; at feeding time or
if the children were sick their mothers were right there, and they didn't have
to cart them all over town. The doctors themselves were very competent ; the
nurses, very competent. They were picked on in these plants to care for any
major or minor accidents or sickness that occurred on this job.
Bill Mooke. What kind of educational system do they have ; how does it com-
pare with ours? Are the children taught to hate us?
Jack Blackwell. They have a wonderful education system there. They have
beautiful schools, well-lighted schools, clean ; and the children are taught more
on a political phase of their country than we are. They're taught world hap-
penings, history, same as we're taught here, but they're taught a lot of other
things that are not taught here until we get to college. By that time I^er — we
were either set in our minds what we were going to do or become, what political
leanings we were going to have. Of course, they have one political leaning
there ; they're taught the history of their country in that respect, and very few
things like this happen here in the United States.
I ran into children who when they were 12 years old could speak very good
English. They're taught a foreign language at that age and usually by the time
they're through high school they can speak and write fluently the language they
are taught. And, in fact, in Yalta — the last night we were there we were
swimming in the Black Sea and I swam out quite a ways and I started back in
and I was about 500 yards from shore and I heard some guy holler at me and
I raised up in the water and here was this fellow coming toward me and he
started talking Russian to me. And I told him I was American and I didn't
understand his — the Russian language. So he says, "Oh, an America" and he
started talking to me in English, and started to ask me questions. Well, I asked
him questions, I asked him what he did, whether he was a student in school and
how come he learned to speak English so well. Well, he said, his mother and
father could both speak English and he picked it up from them and then he
studied English in the schools there. And at 12 years old he could speak almost
as good English as I. But, of course, he could speak better English because
we're not taught the higher English as they are, they're taught the English from
the English books and they have the different pronunciations, and enunciations
on their speech. Of course, they don't understand our slang and they think it's
terrible the way we murder the English language. But, I asked this kid the
leading questions that we had asked everybody else and he answered me the
same way. And, when I got to shore he went on another way and I dressed
and he came over there. And he was just a kid. It surprised me just to see
the size of him — he was just like our 12-year-old kids in this country here. But,
he was very friendly and another thing the children where we were at — when
they found out we were Americans they said, "Send our love to the children of
America."
43903 — 54 14
206 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Tom Lynch. Some people have referred to Russia as a childreu's paradise.
Did you see anything over tliere that bore this out?
Jack Blackwell. Yes, I did. They have pioneer camps in Russia where they
can — oh — send about 20,000,000 cliildren to these pioneer camps in tlie summer
months during vacation. And, they're just like our summer resorts. They're
very beautiful, all equipped for cliildren, on lakes, seashores, rivers, and in the
mountains and they're also taught in those summer camps. They're taught as
they go along — they don't waste much time as far as education is concerned. Of
course, they don't go to schf)ol ij or 6 hours a day, maybe an hour or two a day
they attend classes. And, in the evenings they have games and in the daytime
they have games — evei'yone of tliem had volleyball courts, soccer fields, and slides
for the smaller kids, swings — and they had competent people running them.
Nurses and doctors in most cases. So, if any sickness occurs while these kids
are out there they're kept care of in a first-class — in a first-class way.
Bill MoorB. What is the status of women in the Soviet Union?
Jack Blackwell. They have full equality with men. On every job that we
saw that women were working on they got the same wages, same rights, same
privileges as the men. And the funny thing about it we never saw any fear in
there, you know — I've seen fear in the United States during the depression and
I've worked on jobs whei'e I was afraid to look up for fear the boss would look
down my neck and drive me to work. We never seen anything like that in
Russia.
We followed — well in tliese plants we were followed by anywheres from 50
to 2.000 people followed lis around — they just spontaneously quit their jobs and
followed us around like it didn't make any difference to them whether the boss
was standing there or not and some of the — some of the directors were a little
sore about it liecause they were right in there among us and we didn't know the
interpreters from the workers in the plants and, of course, we would always
try to get mixed up with them as much as possible.
ToM Lynch. Do they have any children working there? Do they have child
labor laws in the Soviet Union?
Jack Blackwell. Yes, we found children working there biit the youngest
children we saw working were 14 years old but they worked 3 hours a day and
were paid for 8 hours a day and they went to school 5 hours a day and the
rest of their time was their own free time like everybody else. But they were
learning a trade, they wanted to pick up this trade so they're usually asked at
a younger age than our kids are v;hat they want to do, and if they want to be a
policeman, O. K. get that. If they want to be a shoeworker or miner — but in the
mines, children don't work in the mines, 18 years old is the .youngest children can
work there, and they go in as students to begin with. Now if they want to con-
tinue to go to school without working they have that free right to do. If they
want to go on through higher, it's according to the grade — just like we have
here in the United States, but if they want to go there is no economic question on
whether they can go. They get to go.
Bill Moore. Jack, how much war talk did you hear over there? Do they
want war with us?
Jack Blackwell. Every town, every city, every plant we were in all you could
hear was peace. Those people are building for peacp. In all the plants we were
in we never saw any preparation for war. We were in automobile factories,
tractor factories, steel mills, bake shops, metal type shops, printing plants, and
(blank) gardens, hospitals, sanitariums, rest homes, schools, and all these
places that we were in there was nothing but talk of peace. And these people
reall,y mean it now, this is the way I can see it and the way I saw it when they —
th.ey say peace they mean peace. They don't want war, they just come out of
one of the most devastating wars that ever happened in the history of the
world. And their country was practically destroyed in the cities that we
visited. Now they're building for the workers and for peace. It's no doubt
in our minds, we know this, they told us this, that they're iireparina; for war
in Russia, but they sa.v that this is a war for proteetioiu Well, that's not for
me to decide upon or anybody else in my class to decide upon anything like that.
But the.v are preparing for a war of protection. They don't want to prepare
for a war of aggression. We saw lots of soldiers over there but of course,
we didn't ask them any questions about the soldiers. We see lots of soldiers
here — we know what the soldiers are here for and those soldiers there are for
the same reason, I suppose. But, we went over there to survey labor, not to
get into any political mixup and ask them any impertinent questions as — such as
that. And as far as the people are concerned they're not in a town we visited
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 207
or a family we visited— probably— that had not lost somebody in the war. Where
a country lost 10,000,000 people well it's not very hard to find just thousands
of them "that lost brothers and sisters, and fathers and mothers. We talked to
one sirl, she was a waiter tliere, in (sounded like Deparosia), that she'd lost her
whole family. The Germans had murdered her whole family— she'd seen her
sister hung and this girl was one of the quietest and sincerest people I've ever
seen in my life. I don't think I heard her — we were there 'A days— I don't
think I heard her say five words all the time that we were there. And we in-
quired about her and that was the answer we got to the question, so you can
see that war to them is something that is entirely out of their minds — they don't
want war. They don't absolutely want war, the common people. I can't say
what the higher ups want or anything like that but they love their government
and if their government said war I think they'd be preaching war too. If —
I know if our Government said war I think we'd have a lot of people preach-
ing give them the atomic bomb and destroy them completely. They never talk
like that of anything in that manner.
Bill Mooke. .lack, this has been very impressive — a — just two questions in
one. I understand that they gave you a very nice camera but did not allow you
to take any pictures with it to back up what you have told here, and one further
question, do you think that this trip was a good one and do you think that
we should have more like it. that is exchange of working i>eople between this
country and the Soviet Union?
Jack Blackwell. To your first question, yes, they did give me a nice camera.
A — according to — I'm not a cameraman — but according to the people I've talked
to about this camera they say it's one of the best cameras manufactured. I'm
sorry that we didn't take any pictures with the camera they gave us but sev-
eralof the delegates had cameras there — our chairman had a moving-picture
camera and they all took pictures. They hadn't had them developed there in
Russia — most of them were colored films and they don't have facilities to de-
velop color and it takes — they have facilities — but it takes about a week and
when we wanted them developed we were never in one place over 3 or 4 days,
but we did have pictures taken there by newsreel people and photographers
in Russia and I have the Russians — I have the pictures to show to anybody
that wants to see them. Now to your next question.
Bill Moore. My nest question was simply this, Do you think that there should
be more trips like the one which you took?
Jack Blackwell. Yes, I definitely do. If we can make a trade with all the
working people with all the countries, not just Russia alone, but every country
in Europe and send 3 or 4 delegations over there a year and have 3 or 4 of their
delegations come over here at the expense of our Government or our unions,
and the same — the same relegated to their countries, it would be a wonder-
ful thing, a very educational program to all the people in the United States.
Bill Moore. Thanks, Jack, a lot for this wonderful interview. I think it's
something that answered all the questions that needed to be answered, ques-
tions that are asked by all the people in the Coeur D'Alene District. A — A —
thank you very nmch.
You have been listening to a discussion of European labor situations by Jack
Blackwell, member of the Wallace Mine Mill Union. KWAL is nonpartisan and
nonpolitical and does not necessarily endorse the views just expressed. The
program was transcribed. This is KWAL with studios and transmitter at
Osburn, Idaho.
Now, Mr. Drummond, would you kindly indicate in the record
the number of plants in which people are employed who are mem-
bers of the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Union ?
Mr. Drummond, Are you speaking now of the State of Idaho ?
Mr. Arens. The State of Idaho specifically. That is the State of
which you have a competent knowledge, as I understand it.
Mr. Drummond, Yes. I would say around 30 mines and reduction
plants.
Mr. Arens. So that the record reflects specifically what the Mine,
Mill, and Smelter Union is, that is the union which was exposed by
the Internal Security Subcommittee about a year and a half ago as
a Communist-controlled organization, is that correct?
Mr. Drummond. That is correct.
208 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. And that is the union which was expelled from CIO in
1950 because CIO found that Mine, Mill, and Smelter consistently
followed the line of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Drummond. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. Do you have any information based upon your inves-
tigation and experience, Mr. Drummond, which would indicate an
interlocking, interweaving relationship between Mine, Mill, and Smel-
ter Union in Idaho with the Communist Party, specifically the Com-
munist Party headquarters in Idaho ?
Mr. Drummond. I have information to the effect that when a change
of officers took place at local 14 at Wallace, Idaho — I can't give the
exact 3"ear, but I can look it up — in cleaning out the office, the com-
plete files of the Communist Party were kept there and fomid there,
and a number of Communist Party cards, of which I have a record
of the numbers with me todav, were found there. At the local office
in Kellogg, during the term of office of Phil Wilkes, who, upon his
death 3 or 4 years ago had a wreath made in the form of the hammer
and sickle over his coffin, a known Communist during his term in the
Communist Party, files were kept at the office of local 18 in Kellogg.
Mr. Arens. What material is produced in these establishments serv-
iced by people engaged who are members of Mine-Mill ?
Mr. Drummond. Well, we have very strategic minerals produced
there which, in case of war, in case those industries were closed by
strikes, would have a very serious effect on the Nation. That is ex-
plained very well in this Cosmopolitan Magazine of 1952, the first
paragraph, which is very explicit on that and deals with Nathan
Witt's part in the 1949 strike which actually did hamper the produc-
tion of strategic materials which at that time were very much needed
to conduct the war or action in Korea.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Drummond, it is a fact, is it not, that under the
existing situation, if the operators of those mines refused to bargain
with Mine, ISIill, and Smelter Union, this Communist-controlled or-
ganization, that would be an unfair labor practice ?
Mr. Drummond. Yes.
Mr. Arens. In other words, it is a fact, is it not, that the operators
of the mines in your State, in Idaho, producing the strategic materials,
are obliged by Federal law to bargain with a Communist-controlled
labor organization ?
Mr. Drummond. That is right. They cannot discriminate against
the Communists.
Mr. Arens. And if they do so, it is an unfair labor practice and
they would be subject to the penalties of the law, is that correct, under
the present practices?
Mr. Drummond. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. On the basis of your background, experience, and study
and investigation of this situation, have you developed any appre-
hension as to the potential for sabotage of the war potential of this
country in the event we were obliged to go to war ?
Mr. Drummond. I think we should be very apprehensive of that
because of their ability at the present time, due to the fact that they
are Communist controlled they could close every one of our strategic
properties in a legal manner and, as well as that, if necessary, they
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 209
have men planted in every property that is producing strategic mate-
rials in which sabotage could be accomplished,
Mr. Arens. Mr. Drummond, in the Salt Lake City hearings of the
Internal Security Subcommittee about a year and a half ago, in Oc-
tober 1952, one Rudy Hanson was identified as a Communist by live
witnesses before the Internal Security Subcommittee. Do you have
information as to where he is at the present time?
Mr. Drummond, At the present time, Mr. Hanson is employed by
the Page Mine of the American Smelting and Refining Co. Said mine
is located at Kellogg.
Mr. Arens. Did you make inquiry of the operators of the mine with
respect to what motivated them in employing or engaging Rudy
Hanson ?
Mr. Drummond. I did. Our association was very much put out
by the fact that we had spent time and effort in fighting Communists,
and as I stated before, not only in the labor unions but everywhere.
In this particular case, after your hearings in Salt Lake City, shortly
after Rudy Hanson resigned as international representative of Mine-
Mill, and shortly after applied for a job with the Federal Mining Co,,
was given a job underground which did not set very well with our
association. Upon inquiring about that, we were told that the mining
company could do nothing else, that they could not discriminate
against this man because he had been proven to be a Communist,
Mr, Arens. I believe, Mr. Drummond, you have some letters which
have come into your possession with reference to the Communist activi-
ties in the mining area in Idaho. I will ask you now, if you will kindly
identify those letters, comment upon them, and if it meets with the
approval of the chairman, we will have them or a photostatic copy of
them incorporated into the record.
Senator Butler. They will be made a part of the record.
(The material referred to is read into the record below with re-
marks.)
Mr. Arens. I would suggest he identify the letters and comment on
them.
Mr. Drummond. This letter is a notice of a Communist Party meet-
ing to be held at 7 p. m. in the office of the union hall in Kellogg,
Idaho. Would you like to have me read the letter ?
Senator Butler. Yes.
Mr. Drummond (reading) :
February 8, 1946.
Deab Comrade : The Kellogg branch meeting will be held Tuesday, February
12, at 7 p. m. in the office of the union hall. The situation is such that it requires
the attendance of every available member. To retain membership in the Com-
munist Party, certain obligations must be carried out. First, dues should be paid
promptly. Second, attendance at meetings is also a requirement under the con-
stitution and it is absolutely necessary in order to have correct policy on a demo-
cratic organization.
As you are well aware, the national and local situation both demand your
attention unless you are willing to submit to the program of reaction. We have
reached a stage in our country where members of the Communist Party must
contribute some time and effort toward building and consolidating our party.
The owning class, with the assistance of the administration, is plunging our
country into another depression. The workers are the ones who will suffer. The
Commimist Party is the only organization capable or willing to give correct
leadership in the critical period ahead. You can judge the quality of the party
according to your own understanding and activity. Are we prepared to give
210 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
correct leadership? If not, it is because you are not contributing your share in
the way of formulating the program and creating activity. We will be looking
for you at the meeting Tuesday at 7 p. m.
Comradely yours,
Executive Boakd, the Kellogg Cltjb.
I have another letter that is not relative to that same question.
Mr. Arens. The Chairman has already ordered that that letter be
a part of the record.
Now will you kindly identify the next letter, comment upon it and
then submit it to the chairman ?
Mr. Drummond. I have a letter here which this man and another
man's letter I will read claim are forgeries. Upon investigating it
somewhat I find that these are the rough drafts of letters which were
typed and sent out and which were signed. This letter is dated Kel-
logg, Idaho, May 11, 1946.
Senator Buti^er. When you say they were signed, they were signed
by the man who claims it is a forgery ?
Mr. Drummond. This man claims that this is not his signature.
Senator Butler. Yes, but then that letter was typewritten and it
is your testimony that he did sign the typewritten copy ?
Mr. Drummond. That is as I understand it. I want to explain that
before I read this, because perhaps on that basis you would rather skip
this one letter.
Senator Butler. It is not clear to me whether the man admits that
he signed the typewritten letter but not that copy.
Mr. Drummond. I see what you mean. I think we had better skip
this one. I have some others.
I have a letter here to Morris Travis, treasurer of mine-mill, whom
I think has been identified on more than one occasion.
Mr. Arens. As a Communist?
Mr. Drumisiond. As a Communist, yes. This letter is dated at
lone, Wash., on April 19. 1945. Would you like to have me read this ?
Senator Welker. Where is lone. Wash., with respect to your home?
Mr. Drummond. lone, Wash., is in eastern Washington, and ap-
proximately 150 to 175 miles from Kellogg, in the immediate metaline
mining district. This letter goes on :
Heltx) Traais : .Tust a word to let yon know the sentiment of the workers in
the locality. Things are not good. I find there has been an influx of I WW's
into the area. You know the defeatist line they have politically. Yet they are
militant as the devil to the average union guy. Neal Logan, the former IWW
president of the Bishop, Calif., local, is working at the Ponderay, and as near
as I can find, there are about 10 or 11 friends with him. I haven't exposed my-
self as yet, and it has resulted in my having to plan to gain contact through
shop stewards set up. They are strictly Fascist in their politics. The worst
of the situation is their militancy. It forces the present leadership to accept
their srecial policy by acclamation of the rank and file who fall for the militant
attitude they express. Truthfully, the present so and so's are dilatory as heU,
which provides the IWW's with a perfect oriening. They are also sparring with
the cement plant as a sideline, the program being that a strike will win if nothing
else will.
Incidentally, if yon are going to irive NLRB hearing officer anythinsr to hang
his hat on. there will have to be some work done by competent people. I will
give all the help I can. but I am handicapped by having to work. Some of the
leadership is sniping at the international, possibly wobbly influence. My per-
sonal analysis of the whole thing is that the local has changed from a local
of action to a local that inst talks. There is nothing being done to educate the
workers and it is slowly dying.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE EST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 211
May I make a comment here at this point ?
Senator Butler. Yes.
Mr. Drummond. The next few sentences I am about to read show
something that I have, as president of the anti- Communist Associa-
tion and our association has maintained for a long time, that the
American laboring man has done a better job of circumventing com-
munism than any other faction of our society. This statement that
this man is going to make here helps to substantiate that statement.
The reason I want to make that is that we want 95 percent of our
laboring people to understand that our association certainly is not
against them.
Now to continue with the letter. He goes on to say :
I am having more success in recruiting fanners, small business people, and
lumberjacks into this Communist Party of America than I have with the
miners. At least, the miners are slower to accept Marxist iwlicy. Well, that is
about all on the union setup. But to me it is plenty. If you can suggest any
plan of action, it will be appreciated. I have never had any direct contact with
this sort of opposition before.
Now, on the personal side of the ledger, I can tell you it will be impossible
for me t<> remain at undertrround work for any extended period. My lungs
won't take it at all. Actually, since March 11, I have had to miss nine shifts
and I now weigh only 150 pounds. I may be able to go on an outside jo)) by
May 1, and if I can, I will stay. Otherwise, I will have to quit. If I am to
receive the State appointment, I want to be working in the industry. Hon-
estly, that is the only reason I am staying at all. I haven't heard anything
from anyone on the appointment. Apparently it has been forgotten or filled,
or something else has happened.
Travis, if you know any information, good or bad, I would appreciate know-
ing how the situation actually is. As far as myself, it isn't so important but I
am not going to jeopardize my health a great deal further on promises alone.
Since the 1.5th of February I have personally felt that there would be no ap-
pointment, so it won't be a big shock to me to learn it has fallen apart. In
other words, Travis, don't pull any punches. If it cannot be done, say so.
Then I can go ahead on a program of some sort. If it is not to be had, I will
feel sorry only because I think a real job could be done, and I think I could
handle the job. If you have any questions on the union situation, I will try to
answer them.
Sincerely,
Jack Gallagiiee.
Io7ie, Wash.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Drummond, do you have any comments to make
in general respecting the legislation, the several bills, which are pend-
ing before this committee?
Mr. Drummond. Yes, I do. Our association feels that this com-
mittee has done a very fine job in the work it is doing, and trying
to do. We are very proud of our own Senator from Idaho, Senator
Welker, for his part in it. We feel that the bills which you now have
proposed are entirely in order, that there certainly is need to put
teeth into the laws, to be able to actually control communism in the
labor unions. But at the same time, we should like to see a union put
in suspension for a period of time and then their bargaining rights
taken away from them if they don't kick out the Commies rather than
to do it too quickly. In other words, we think that the laws should
not penalize the 99 percent of the good, loyal American union people
who, sure, maybe they are radical about their unions, but they are cer-
tainly good, loyal Americans.
We feel that the 99 percent of those people should not be penalized
and their bargaining rights destroyed by trying to get at the 1 percent.
212 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
So if, in the enactment of that legislation, you could place a union in
suspension, and give it time to clean the Commies out and then if they
do not then use other means.
Mr. Arens. Thank you very much, Mr. Drummond.
Senator Butler. Thank you very much.
Mr. Arens. The next witness is Albert J. Fitzgerald, president of
the United Electrical Workers.
Senator Butler. Kaise your right hand. In the presence of
Almighty God, in this matter now in hearing before the task force of
the Subcommittee on Internal Security, do you solemnly promise to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the trutli, so help
you God ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I do.
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT J. EITZGEEALD, PRESIDENT, UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS OE AMERICA
(UE), ACCOMPANIED BY RUSS NIXON, LEGISLATIVE REPRE-
SENTATIVE
Mr. Arens, Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and
occupation.
Mr. Fitzgerald. My name is Albert J. Fitzgerald, my residence
is 9 Raddin's Grove Avenue, Lynn, Mass. I am president of the
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America.
Mr. Arens. You are appearing today in response to a confirmation
of request by you for the opportunity to appear, Mr. Fitzgerald ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I requested an opportunity to appear to testify
on the legislation pending before this committee and the request has
been granted.
Mr. Arens. You are accompanied by counsel ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I have with me my legislative representative, Mr.
Nixon.
Senator Butler. Will your testimony include all three bills now
pending?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir.
Senator Butler. Counsel, proceed.
Mr. Arens. You have a prepared statement, do you ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, I do.
Senator Butler. Before you proceed with your prepared statement,
may we ask you a few questions here. How long have you been presi-
dent of UE?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Since 1941.
Senator Butler. And UE is a labor organization which was
expelled from the CIO?
Mr. Fii'ZGERALD. No, sir.
Mr. Arens. It was not expelled from the CIO ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir.
Mr. Arens. It is affiliated with the CIO ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir.
Mr. Arens. Was it at one time affiliated with the CIO?
Mr. Fitzgerald. It was, and we withdrew in 1949.
Senator Jen NER. 19 — what was that?
Mr. Fitzgerald. 1949.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 213
Mr. Arens. You have been active in the labor movement for some
time?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir.
Senator Butler, Wait a minute. At that point, the CIO never
passed any resolutions of suspension or in connection with your union ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. They may have several months after we withdrew.
I don't know.
Senator Butler. You were out ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. We never received any communications from them
or anything to the effect that they considered our case or that we
would have to appear before them. We withdrew in, I think it was^
September of 1949,
Senator Butler, Are you affiliated with any other labor organiza-
tion at this time ?
Mr, Fitzgerald, We are completely independent.
Senator Butler. Completely independent?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Completely.
Mr, Arens, What is a company union?
Mr, Fitzgerald, A company union is a union under the domination
of the employer.
Mr, Arens, And the National Labor Relations Board will not cer-
tify a company union, will it, because they say it is not a bona fide labor
union. Isn't that the sum and substance of it ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right.
Mr. Arens. Because it is controlled by an outside source.
Mr, Fitzgerald. It is controlled by the company.
Mr. Arens, And you, of course, feel that is bad, do you not, to have
a labor organization controlled by an outside agency or entity?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I certainly do think it is bad for a labor organiza-
tion to be controlled by any outside organization.
Mr. Arens. Would you think that it would be equally bad for a
labor organization to be controlled by an agency of a foreign power,
namely, the Communist Party?
Mr. FiTzGER^iLD, I am opposed to the domination of a labor organ-
ization by any group whatsoever,
Mr. Arens. Who is the secretary-treasurer of the UE ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. His name is Julius Emspak.
Mr. Arens. And do you know whether or not he is a Communist?
Mr, Fitzgerald, I have no personal knowledge of that.
Mr, Arens. You know he has been identified as a Communist by
live witnesses before congressional committees ?
Mr. Fitzgerald, I know that he and many others have been iden-
tified as Communists before congressional
Mr, Arens, Who are members of UE ?
Mr, Fitzgerald, Wlio are members of all kinds of organizations.
Mr, Arens, Are they also members of UE ?
Mr, Fitzgerald. We have had some named, yes.
Mr. Arens. How about James Matles? What is he in UE?
Mr. Fitzgerald. He is the director of organization.
Mr. Arens. And he is or has been identified as a Communist before
congressional investigations by live witnesses ; has he not ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I would say he probably has.
Mr. Arens. Do you know a man by the name of Jerome Joseph?
214 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, I requested an opportunity to
appear here to testify on the legislative aspects of the bills pending
before this committee. In the past week you have had several rep-
resentatives of indvistry appear here to speak in favor of these bills.
They were not interrogated the same way that I am being inter-
rogated at the present time.
I would appreciate it if we had an opportunity to give our testi-
mony here and then after we give our testimony we will be glad to
answer questions.
Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. You can proceed with your
statement.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, our organization is a firm believer
in a strong trade-uniim movement. We have a prepared statement
here. Eather than take the time of the committee by going through it
all, we would like to introduce that for the record and tlien Mr. Nixon
and I will give a brief summary of what is contained in it.
Mr. Arens. Wlio prepared this statement?
Mr. Fitzgerald. The United Electrical, Radio, and Machine
Workers.
Mr. Arens. Wlio — I mean what individuals prepared the state-
ments ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. The staff in the offices of the UE.
Mr. Arens. Did any Communists work on this statement ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, I again repeat, can I have the same
privilege as the representatives of industry had ?
Senator Butler. If you will answer that question, we will let you
proceed.
Mr. Arens. Could I ask this one question so we can clarify the air?
You believe, do you not, Mr. Fitzgerald, that Emerson was not too
far off when he said "Wliat you are speaks so loudly I can't hear
what you say"? Don't you think the committee is entitled to know
who prepares these statements and out of whose mouth these words
that are on that paper have come?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I can assure you that these words on this paper
come out of the moutli and represent the views of the members of this
organization that I represent.
Mr. Arens. Of all of the members?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. Were all of the members consulted in the process of
preparing this statement?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No more so, I suppose, than all of the constituents
of the Senators were consulted in the conduct of these hearings.
Mr. Arens. Tell us now what Communists participated in the
preparation of that statement, if any.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know of any Communists that partici-
pated in the j^reparation of the statement.
Senator Butler. Proceed.
Mr. Fitzgerald. As I said, Mr. Chairman, we would like to intro-
duce the statement for the record.
Senator Butler. It will be made a part of the record.
(Mr. Fitzgerald's prepared statement follow^s:)
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 215
Statement of the United Electbical, Radio and Machine
WoRiCERS OF America (UB)
TO protect JOBS, WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, PROTECT THE FULL FREEDOM OF
WORKERS TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN UNIONS AND UNION LEADERS AND TO ENJOY
COMPLETE PERSONAL POLITICAL FREEDOM
This statement proposing any and all legislative proposals seeking to limit the
full freedom of workers to choose their own unions and union leaders and to enjoy
complete personal political freedom, is presented on behalf of the more than
300,000 workers in the electrical, radio, machine, and farm equipment industries,
who are represented in collective bargaining by the United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America (UE). These UE workers are employed in more
than 1,000 plants, where the UE has been democratically chosen in repeated secret
elections to be the bargaining agent. The UE presents its views on this Federal
legislation dealing with trade unions with a deep feeling of pride in the record
of service of the union to its members, and with a profound concern for the gen-
eral welfare for our country and the American people.
The Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran legislation being considered by this
committee, compi-ise the most far-reaching proposals for regimentation and Gov-
ernment control of trade unions ever seriously advanced in the United States.
These bills, if enacted into law, would end the right of workers freely to choose
their unions and union leaders by giving a Government bureau absolute licensing
power to determine which unions shall be permitted to exist and which workers
shall be permitted to be union leaders. In addition, employers would be em-
powered without limitation to tire employees at will on the basis of political
beliefs and association. The Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran bills would put
into effect a combination of a hated and destructive employer's blacklist, and Gov-
•ernment-employer control of unions characteristic of totalitarian labor fronts.
This would mean the destruction of the free trade union movement in America
at the very moment that the economic needs of the working people most urgently
require the strongest possible, and freest, union organization.
The fundamental principle motivating all branches of organized labor, and all
civil liberties organizations, in their opposition to such legislative proposals, is
nowhere better stated than in the unanimously supported report of the resolu-
tions committee to the 1953 AFL Convention which said :
"We cannot emphasize too strongly that the trade unions needs to be genuinely
free trade unions and cannot represent the vital interests of the working people,
and that democracy is jeopardized when their organization's structure and lead-
ership are determined by anyone outside their membership. This holds true for
every democratic country."
The views of the UE on this type of legislative proposal can only be adequately
evaluated within the framework of the following fundamental premises upon
which our position is based.
FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES UPON WHICH UE OPPOSITION TO BUTLER,
GOLDWATER AND M'CAKRAN RILLS ARE BASED
First : The general welfare of our country and its people requires the existence
of strong, independent and powerfully effective trade unions. What is good for
the trade unions of the American workers is good for America. The UE holds
this to be true for the following reasons :
(a) Only through collective bargaining carried out by strong trade unions can
realistic progress be made toward the wage and working conditions needed to
guarantee the purchasing power and high living standards required to offset de-
pression and create stabilized peacetime full emplovment. There is today, in
1954, grave concern about the economic outlook of our country. Already more
than 4 million workers are unemployed. Already existing unemployment and
the concern for the future is generally based upon doubts that there will be
adequate peacetime civilian markets creating sufficient demand for the output
of our factories to maintain full employment.
A year ago the UE argued before the Congress for the full repeal of the Taft-
Hartley Act and the defeat of the Goldwater-Rhodes bill on the grounds that
legislation to strengthen rather than weaken the power of unions was needed
to offset depression. We said then:
"Today in relatively boom conditions, the general economic welfare similarly
requix-es increased bargaining power by the trade unions as an antidote to de-
pression. The limitations on organizational advances and on the bargaining
216 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
power of labor in past years have weakened the labor movement's ability to main-
tain wage levels adequate to create the purchasing power required to stabilize
peacetime full employment. The need is as great in 1953 as it was in 1935, to
strengthen the arm of trade unions as a general antidote to depression — this time
depression lying ahead rather than at hand."
We charged then that antilabor union weakening legislation like the Taft-
Hartley law was a depression maker.
Today, events have verified this UE observation. Serious unemployment is
at hand. The danger of full-scale depression is tremendous. Yet, in spite of
a growing mass need for mass markets employers use every weapon at their
command and the Government rushes increasingly in to aid employers to gain
strength to drive to cut wages and reduce working conditions through speedup.
Now, more than ever, America ne<?ds strong unions to achieve steady, substan-
tial and general increases in the purchasing power of the people through rising
real wages. Only through collective bargaining, carried out by strong unions
can these wage advances required by the general welfare be obtained from em-
ployers who are driving for maximum profits by getting more work for less pay.
(&) Effective genuine democracy, based on the popular rule of the people of
America, requires a vigorous and powerful trade-union movement to offset on
behalf of the ordinary people the vast economic, political and propaganda power
of giant industrial and financial interests. In modern industrial society there
is a grave problem of autocracy of wealth, based on the power of multibillion
dollar industrial and financial corporations, and on associations of concentrated
economic power, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the Cham-
ber of Commerce, the Committee for Constitutional Government, the American
Mining Congress, etc. ; based on the virtually complete big-business domination
for propaganda purposes of the means of communication in newspapers, maga-
zines, radio, TV, and movies ; based on the power of wealth in our political life.
To avoid this autocratic domination of our life through the preservation of
democracy for all, requires as its basic essential the counterbalancing force of
a free and strong trade-union movement.
Second : Only genuinely and completely free trade unions, controlled ex-
clusively by their members who have full freedom of choice of their union, their
union policies and their union officers, and who enjoy uninhibited political free-
dom as workers can have the independent strength and effectiveness required to
protect the economic welfare and democracy of the country. This means that no
outside force, whether that be governmental, employer, religious or political,
can be substituted for membership control of unions if they are to be effective.
This basic premise is the same as that upon which our American democratic
society as a whole is based, the proposition that our country's security and wel-
fare is rooted in the democratic control of its policies by all of the people. In our
unions as in our country, anything that strengthens, deepens and extends popu-
lar democratic control serves the security and welfare of the country. Anything
that limits or interferes with that democratic control weakens our security and
welfare.
TIE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
1. The Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran bills, and any other variations of
these measures or proposals limiting the right of workers to choose their own
unions and their own union leaders, and to exercise their unrestricted individual
political freedom of belief and association should be repudiated. Federal legis-
lation must protect and in no way limit the absolute right of workers to freedom
of choice.
2. In pursuit of the general welfare, the Government should give effective
protection and encouragement to organized labor specifically with regard to
labor's right to organize and to engage in free collective bargaining with the
unlimited right to strike. This requires the following: (1) Repeal all sections of
the Taft-Hartley Act putting limitations on the Wagner Act in its protection of
labor's riglit to organize freely and bargain collectively; (2) enactment of the
provisions contained in the LaFollette- Thomas oppressive labor practices bill of
1942 and S. 603 (antilabor espionage bill) introduced in the 83d Congress by
Senator Murray.
The vnendivfj employer drive against organized labor
The current drive to toughen the Taft-Hartley Act and add legislation estab-
lishing Government licensing control of unions is part of the long and uninter-
rupted history of the fight against organized labor and collective bargaining by
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 217
the dominant employers of the country. The Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran
bills beini? pushed by the NAM, the chamber of commerce, and giant corporations
are obviously part of this continued antagonism to organized labor. The em-
ployer aim has always been to prevent effective collective action by workers.
The first effort was, and it continues to be the aim of many employers, to prevent
any whatsoever unions from being organized. When forced to retreat, the em-
ployers have sought to gain their aims through pure company unions, and that
continues to be a^major aim for many employers. When forced away from pure
company unions, the employers have sought in every way conceivable to dominate
and infliaence their workers' unions. The proposals before this committee repre-
sent the zenith of this employer effort, the drive to set up systematic employer
censorship and control of unions through Government agency.
The rising threat of depression has stepped up the employer drive against
union organization. In every plant in the country employers prepare for busi-
ness setback by stepping up their campaign to cut wages and speed up produc-
tion. They are seeking increasingly to relocate their production in nonunion
areas and to break down and escape from union wages and working conditions.
As the employers turn on the screws on workers economically, they move at the
same time to weaken the unions so as to prevent workers from fighting back to
protect themselves and their working conditions.
Employers know that their planned program of ruthlessly driving for more
work for less pay, coupled with rising unemployment, will lead to increasingly
aroused activity and militancy on the part of their employees. Afraid of the
power of the awakening giant of labor, big business now uses its temporary
control of the Government to attempt to tie down the giant before he is fully
aroused. This is the background of the push for Butler, Goldwater, McCarran
legislation to destroy the internal democracy and rank-and-file control of
American unions.
The familiar pattern — antilabor aims disguised as anticommunism
It is axiomatic that real antilabor aims are never openly stated. From the
first attacks on union organization in America, antagonistic employers have
always clothed their attack on collective bargaining and unionization under
the camouflage of alleged opposition to "radicals," or "agitators," "anarchists,"
"Socialists," and "Communists." The history of the labor movement makes
this pattern of disguise clear beyond any question of doubt.
When the Senate Labor Committee in 1938 investigated the drive of em-
ployers against the civil rights of workers to organize into their own unions in
1938, it concluded "Although, as the investigation reveals, the employer directs
his spy forces against any kind of union activity, he cloaks his hostility under
the pretext that he is defending himself and the country against communism."
In the history of the union organization of the mass production industries of
America during the thirties, the employers main weapon was the charge of "com-
munism." The House Un-American Activities Committee under the leadership
of Martin Dies was a principal employer weapon used against CIO organization.
The widely distributed antilabor leaflet entitled "Join the CIO and Build a
Soviet America," the attacks on John L. Lewis and Sidney Hillman as soviet
agents, the Un-American Committee's smear of the CIO Political Action Com-
mittee as a "Communist front," are all symbols of this employer disguise of
their attack directed at the wage and working conditions of their employees.
Today this anti-Communist camouflage for antilabor aims is being used to
screen a general attack on the people and to excuse the destruction of basic civil
liberties in our country. This leading Kepublican Party spokesman smeared
20 years of Democratic Party administration as "20 j^ears of treason." Mean-
while, using this disguise, giant corporate and financial interests of the country,
anxious about their profits, concerned lest their power be challenged, press for
Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran type legislation to paralyze the labor move-
ment. In the words of the CIO Oil Workers :
"Communism, communism, communism, communism — the word is being re-
peated over and over again by the practitioners of the big lie technique, repeated
until it hums in the ears of nearly all Americans. * * * The constant repetition
of the word is intended to whip up hysteria, to cause people to lose all sense
of reason and all emotions of charity.
"The hysteria is being coldly, carefully, deliberately cultivated by a group
of men in powerful positions. They are creating this hysteria as a smokescreen
behind which they hope to remold America in a pattern completely different from
that we have known in the past.
218 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
"They want to bring about an end to what they think is this damned fool-
ishness of common people organizing and expi*essing themselves and promoting
the common welfare * * * through labor unions for example. * * * An ex-
ample of their real intention, behind this phony facade of 'anticommunism' is
found in Senate bill 1606, known as the Butler bill which is now i)ending before
Congress. * * * The Butler bill would destroy bona fide trade unions under the
pretext of fighting communism."
The drive to replace trade union democracy with Government controls pro-
ceeds under a special smokescreen of propaganda about sabotage and espionage.
This special propaganda base is required because the aims of the Butler, Gold-
water, McCarran legislation are so extremely anti-American and antidemo-
cratic. Close inspection of the proceedings of the various hearings dealing
with this legislation and the atmosphere in which they are surrounded reveals a
calculated effort to create the impression that it is sabotage and espionage which
justifies the drastic antidemocratic steps proposed. A false picture of a nation
at the mercy of saboteurs and spies operating in our industrial plants is de-
liberately created.
Fortunately the facts are clear to expose the fakery of this "sabotage and
espionage" atmosphere. One can search the records of all the investigating
committee hearings, all the Government reports, all the testimony of antilabor
companies, all the results of all the forces hungry for evidence to support their
espionage and sabotage tales and yet this fact remains: there has not been a
single verified instance of union-connected sabotage or espionage in any indus-
trial establishment in America. There was no instance of union-connected sab-
otage or espionage during the recent Korean war. There has been no such in-
stance in connection with any phase of the cold war military production. There
has been no evidence of a single instance of union-connected sabotage or espio-
nage during World War II and there was no such evidence in the period prior to
American entry into that war.
Officials of the giant General Electric Co., appearing repeatedly before com-
mittees of Congress, have pressed for drastic antilabor legislation. Yet, when
asked for any examples of sabotage or espionage in their plants have been un-
able to furnish any such instances. The reason simply was that there are none.
Repeated efforts of congressional investigators to elicit such evidence have
utterly failed, and this failure underlines the absence of any single act of
sabotage or espionage by unions or imion leaders in America.
A further significant example of this fact is contained in the hearings of
this committee in Pittsburgh on November 10, when Committee Counsel Arens
asked Witness Matt Cvetic, who was identified as a "former undercover agent for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Communist Party" whether he had
"information which you can furnish to the committee with reference to activi-
ties of Communists identified in the FE, in espionage, sabotage or other extra-
curricular activities." Mr. Cvetic answered. "Yes sir : I have." What then
followed is significant and should be carefully evaluated by all who care to
look at the facts. Having thus been pressed to give his evidence about espionage
and sabotasre in the UE, this Government witness proceeded at length and with-
out limitation presumably to say everything he had to say on this subject. Any-
one reading his testimony will find that he does not even allege a single solitary
instance of sabotage or espionage by any union, including the UE which was
then imder investigation. Curiously the three specific situations to which Mv.
Cvetic referred involved the United Steel Workers of America: (1) An inner
union disjiute on how much to settle steel wage increase demands for in 194S;
(2) the election of an alleged "Communist agent" by workers in Edgewater
Steel Co. as the president of their union : and (3) the case of the Crucible Steel
Co. of 2,800 workers where Mr. Cvetic claimed that "about S or 10 party mem-
bers" were elected to leadership in that union. None of these situations could
even remotely be classed as sabotage or espionage.
The simple, irrefutable fact is. this Senate subcommittee is considering pro-
posals to obliterate the democratic choice of workers at a time when there is
absolutely no evidence of any acts of sabotage or espionage connected in any way
with any American union or union leader.
Hiding behind this propaganda camouflage is the real aim of the sponsors of
this legislation to weaken the trade unions to such a degree that they cannot
stand as an effective obstacle against employers' actions cutting wages and
lowering working standards. The fact that the Butler, Goldwater, and McCar-
ran type of legislation is being pushed by employer forces who brouglit about
the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, who insist on a 100 percent antilabor
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 219
NLRB, and who are striving to undermine unions and union conditions in their
plants,' offices and mines reveals the true autilabor aim of these bills in spite
of the anti-Communist camouflage.
Current proposals to outlaw unions
The Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran bills embody almost every evil aspect
of the employer campaign to legislate free unions out of existence. They would
deprive workers of the right to choose their own unions or their own leadership
and give the McCarran Act Subversive Activities Control Board and the United
States Attorney General power of life or death over unions and the power
arbitrarily to exclude any individuals whose views did not please them from
active participation in union affairs.
Almost immediately upon its introduction, the Goldwater bill was attacked
by an American Federation of Labor spokesman as a "lisliiug license to the
McCarran Act Control Board to probe into the affairs of unions everywhere
and decide which unions and employees it wished to purge." AFL Research
Director Glen Slaughter of the AFL League for Political Education, who at-
tacked the bill, added—
"It would order out of business any union that ever advocated anything the
Communist Party advocated, including income taxes and public schools. No
bill in recent years has so clearly resembled the thought control so charactertistic
of totalitarian regimes" (AFL News Reporter, March 27, 1953).
In one way or another, other spokesmen of CIO and AFL have expressed their
disapproval of the type of legislation of the Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran
bills.
UE warned against just such proposed legislation when James J. Matles, its
director of organization, and Russ Nixon, its Washington representative, in
1952, testified before the subcommittee of the Senate Labor Committee chaired
by Senator Humphrey.
Tliese bills would place directly in the hands of the employer the power to
deny to his employees the right to political and economic beliefs that run con-
trary to his own." They would provide an instrument for the suppression of
economic and political dissent among working people and, by extension among
all Americans, would deprive the people of the right to adopt and carry out their
own program in the people's own interest.
The Nazi lahor-front parallel. — The provisions of the proposed legislation
present a number of startling parallels with the union-destruction program of
Nazi Germany.
Determination by a Government thought-control board as to which union has
the right to survive is a historical repetition of the policy statement made by
Dr. Robert Ley, director of the German labor front. Through the authority
granted him by Hitler, he ordained that —
"It is the will of the Fuhrer that outside of the German labor front no other
labor organization * * * is to exist * * *."
The political tests provided for unions and their officers and employees, called
for by the Butler, Goldwater, McCarran bills are more than reminiscent of the
decree issued by another official of the German labor front, who stated
"All po.*;tions on factory and employee counsellor's councils in Germany must
be filled by National Socialists. There must no longer be any factory in which
Marxists or 'Christians' hold the leading positions. Orders should therefore be
given immediately that Communists and Catholic factory or employee counsellors
who are still holding office shall be dismissed."
These bills attempt to disguise the attack on all of organized labor as merely
an attack on "Commimists" and in the interests of the national welfare. This is
a crude but accui-ate restatement of the Nazi German labor front direction to
those charged with the wrecking of the organized labor movement in Germany.
The Nazi order states —
"The taking over of the independent unions must proceed in such fashion that
the workers and employees will not be given the feeling that this action is directed
against them, but on the contrary, an action against a superannuated system
which is not directed in conformity with the interests of the German nation."
The American people, and particularly the working people organized in free
labor unions are not yet ready to accept the schemes and plans of Hitler as an
American way of life. Amei'ican workers are particularly sensitive that the
Hitler-like union-wrecking plan set forth in the Butler, Goldwater, McCarran bills
have been the pet project of such corporations as the General Electric Co. and
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
220 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
General Electric Co. Vice President Boulware recently publicly proposed that,
after being proscribed by the Government agency —
***** a cease-and-desist order prohibit (ed) the designated individuals and the
organization froru soliciting or reviewing union dues, encouraging or supporting
strikes or other interferences with production, and from any attempt to compel
employers to recognize or continue to recognize the organization or individual as
a bargaining representative. Consideration should be given to providing criminal
as well as civil penalties for violation of such a final order * * *"
And Westinghouse Electric Corp. President Gwilyn A. Price proposed :
*'A union found to be Communist-dominated should be an outlaw — not merely
a second-class citizen of the industrial community * * * Communist-dominated
unions should be effectively prohibited from engaging in any form of union
activity * * *"
Workers recognize that, if their right to choose their own unions and leader-
.ship on the basis of program and record is destroyed, and the right of a Govern-
ment agency to outlaw unions is established, the decisions as to which unions
shall be approved and which outlawed, will, in the last analysis, inevitably be
made by the employers.
All unions are endangered. — It is argued in extenuation of the proposals to
establish political control over the labor movement that it is not intended to
outlaw many, but only a few unions.
Once it is established that the Government can set up categories of outlawed
unions and officially approved unions, any union desiring to maintain its status
on the approved list must conform in policy and program to the rules that poli-
ticians and employers establish.
The fact that these proposals are at the moment ostensibly directed against
the progressive and democratic unions — the ones at the moment under the heavi-
est red-baiting attack — does not reduce the danger of the proposals to all labor.
To whatever degree any union fights to serve the interests of its membership,
it too will be red-baited, and it too, outlawed in its turn.
THE ATTACK ON TIE EXPOSES THE ANTILABOR CHARACTER OF PROPOSALS FOR GOVERN-
MENT LIMITATIONS ON DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF WORKERS AND UNIONS
It is commonly proclaimed that in the initial round, the UE would be among
the first of the unions attacked by the various proposals to limit the workers'
rights to free choice. The record of the UE, its internal democratic operation,
its long struggle for the welfare of its members, and its devotion to the best
interests of the entire Nation, thus serve to make clear the general antilabor
and antidemocratic character of the proposals to limit free choice of workers
under the disguise of attacking Communist-dominated unions.
The foundation of the proposal to destroy the UE and its leadership is the
charge that the UE is Communist dominated. A genuinely democratic union
• •annot be dominated by any outside force. The irrefutable fact of the inner
democracy of the UE — that the UE is rim by its membership alone — gives the lie
to any and all charges of any outside domination of the UE.
UE democracy
The obvious fact is that a union run by its membership cannot be dominated
by any outside force whatsoever.
The membership is the highest body of the UE. All actions of the union con-
vention affecting the union constitution must be submitted to the membership
of the local unions for ratification or rejection at special membership meetings
called for the purpose, and no such actions can be put into effect until ratified by
the membership.
The highest ix»licymaking body in the UE, under the UE constitution, is the
annual convention — not the officers of the union. Every local union, pro- or
anti-administration, has equal right to elect and send delegates to the con-
vention, with voting power proiwrtional to the local's membership. Every local
has an equal right to submit resolutions to the convention, and through its dele-
gates to take part in the debate on all questions and to vote on every issue.
There is no packing of UE conventions with machine-paid delegates, no strong-
arming of opposition delegates, no cutting off of discussion by high-handed chair-
men, as occurs so frequently and repeatedly in the conventions (when they have
them) of some unions which the chairman of this subcommittee never finds it
necessary to attack.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 221
Locals of the UE adopt their own constitutions and bylaws, the only restric-
tion being that these shall not conflict w^ith the constitution and bylaws of the
international union. The members of local unions elect their own ofiicers, shop
stewards, and other local functionaries and conduct their own affairs. In the
locals as in the international union, the membership is the highest body.
Members or locals in opposition to the policies or leadership of the UE are
protected in their right to be in opposition, however distasteful or injurious their
policies, in marked contrast to the pi-actice of certain "approved" unions whose
top officials dictatorially remove the elected officials of opposition locals pure-
ly and simply for the purpose of wiping out opposition.
The UE practice of democracy extends to every part of the work of the union.
It is demonstrated again in the method by which our members determine the
nature of their demands for negotiations, what settlements they shall reject or
accept and whether or not to strike.
Since its foundation in 1936, the UE has guarded the principles of rank-and-
file control and internal democracy upon which the union was built, as ex-
pressed in the preamble to the UE constitution :
"We * * * form an organization which unites all workers in our in-
dustry on an industrial basis, and rank-and-file control, regardless of craft, age,
sex, nationality, race, creed, or political beliefs, and pursue at all times a policy
of aggressive struggle to improve our conditions."
The incontrovertible fact of membership control of the demands, settlements,
strikes, and general program of the UE makes nonsense of the pretended fear
that the oflScers of the UE may transform the union overnight into an instru-
ment of subversion. Nothing in the record of the union or its leadership justifies
such a fear.
The attack upon the UE is being based very frankly upon the program and
policies of the UE.
The program and policies of the UE are determined democratically by the
membership, and in consequence reflect the needs, aspirations, and opinions of
the membership.
The attack, then, is on the needs of the membership, and upon their right to
formulate their own policies and express their own opinions upon economic and
political questions.
The record of the TJE
The record of the UE, its policies and activities have been an open book since
the organization of the union. This record has been proudly proclaimed by the
UE throughout the country and spread upon the records of many Congresses.
It is not intended here to attempt a lengthy restatement of this record. The
highlights of the UE record, however, reveal the reactionary character of the
attacks on the UE, indicates the evil inspiration of those attacks, and shows
that the attacks on the UE endanger the entire free labor movement and the
general welfare of the country.
The UE has consistently maintained its political independence. It has not
abandoned its political independence to any party or any outside group. It
was essentially this independent political position and the refusal to join
the leadership of CIO in giving up political independence that led to the first
disagreement of the UE with the CIO, and ultimately to the withdrawal of
the UE from the CIO. UE's refusal to climb in any political party's pocket
also led to the vindicative antagonism of powerful political machine forces.
The UE under its present leadership, has an outstanding record of organiza-
tion and collective bargaining. Under this leadership the UE organized the
electrical, radio, and machine industries of the country. Throughout its 18
years of existence the UE has waged a constant fight against speedup and
rate-cutting by the giant corporations of the electrical manufacturing industry.
The UE has led in the fight against the exploitation of women and Negro
workers in our industry. The contracts and wage levels in the industry are
a monument to the union organization of the industry, the devotion and serv-
ice of rank-and-file members, and the leadersliip of the UE in its struggle to
better working conditions and improve wages. The UE has sought to in-
crease the activity and participation of its membership in the political and
legislative issues of the country and year after year has appeared before
the Congress in behalf of legislation aimed to better the living conditions of
the working jpeople, and to protect the democratic rights of all the people.
43903—54 15
222 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The traducers of the UE assert as their most basic fabrication that the UE
•'througli Commiinist domination serves the purposes of Soviet foreign policy."
A careful and objective look at the facts thoroughly exposes such slanderous
allegations. The position of the UE on foreign-policy matters as set forth
in its annual conventions and as carried out by its officers and representatives,
simply reveals that the UE has followed consistently, a policy designed to
serve the interests of its membership by constantly seeking to maintain peace
in the world, resolutely opposing Fascist and colonial exploiting forces through-
out the world, through a foreign policy determined by the influence of the
common people rather than of special, profiteering interests.
At the outset of considering this question, two points should be made. (1)
The UE is a trade union and, as such, the overwhelming bulk of its activities,
deliberations, policies, and pronouncements have to do with basic trade-union
questions and related domestic policies. The press of tliese issues has, per-
force, required that a minimum of time and attention be given to some of the
broader questions of world affairs. The record reveals this to be the case. UE
pronouncements on foreign policy are limited almost exclusively to general;
convention resolutions and do not deal with the specific issues which arise
regularly in the course of time.
Indeed there are some in our union who feel that the UE should have given,
more time and more specific attention to the overwhelming important ques-
tions of foreign policy. The facts remain tiiat over the years in UE, as a
trade union, has been overwhelmingly concerned with trade-union problems.
(2) Through the year 1947 the UE, as a section of the CIO, participated in
the formulation and fully agreed with the foreign-policy position taken by
CIO. This fact applies at all stages, including the period immediately prior
to World War II, when the CIO, as so many others, had grave doubts about
United States involvement in the European conflict, with lend-lease, conscrip-
tion, etc.
In 1947 the split that began between the UE and the rest of the CIO, inso-
far as it involved foreign policy, resulted not from a change in UE policy
but from a change in CIO policy. Without deviation the UE has followed the
policy developed by the late Franklin D. Roosevelt and enunciated as our na-
tional policy at Yalta and Potsdam declarations at the end of World War II.
A close inspection of the issues of this period shows that only the applica-
tion of the most extreme McCarthyism in the trade-union field can lead to
allegations of "service to Soviet foreign policy by the UE."
To restate : It is the position of the UE that all proposals which would estab-
lish Government controls depriving workers of their free choice of their union,
or of their free choice of their union officers, are profoundly antidemocratic
and are a major weapon of the antilabor forces seeking to destroy the free
and effective American labor movement. The facts are that the UE is a demo-
cratic rank-and-file organization, loyal to the best interests of the American
people, and that the democracy of the UE in organization and practice in-
sures that it cannot be dominated by any outside force whatsoever. The
attempt to force labor into conformity with' the policies of Government and
industry, by outlawing unions which dissent from these policies, threatens the
living standards and democratic rights of the whole people, not the members
of organized labor alone. Under the false pretense of guarding against sabotage
and treason, powerful and wealthy economic royalists are hoping to use their
power in Washington to outlaw all opposition to their policy of profiteering and
repression — to crush dissent in America, to take away from the people the
right to determine for themselves the issues of plenty or poverty, of freedom
or subservience, of peace and war. It is that attempt that is treason ta
American democracy, American welfare, and American security.
Mr. Fitzgerald. We would like to briefly summarize what is con-
tained. First, as I said, we believe that it is to the best interests of
the country that we have a strong trade-union movement in America.
We believe it is particularly necessary at the present time because of
the unemployment situation that has gone upward of over 4 million
people today.
We don't think that anything should be done to weaken the trade-
union movement during this particular period.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 223
At the last session of Cono-ress we appeared before the House Labor
Committee and the Senate Labor Committee and we testified at that
time on the Taft-Hartley law and also the Goldwater-Rhodes bill
which is at present before this committee of yours. We were in
opposition to it then because we felt then, and we stated so, that it
was a depression maker, that it would weaken the strength of the
unions, all unions. It would put them into a position where they
would be unable to really bargain and succeed in getting sufficient
benefits for the people that they represent.
Senator Butler. Mr. Fitzgerald, may I ask a question at this point ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir.
Senator Butler. Do you believe that there are any Communists
in labor organizations in America at the present time ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Why, I suppose that there are probably Com-
munists in every labor organization.
Senator Butler. Do you feel that
Mr. Fitzgerald. As well as other organizations.
Senator Butler. Do you feel that there are any Communist-domi-
nated unions existing in America as of this time ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know that there is any. We have been
accused of being a Communist-dominated union any number of occa-
sions, and I want to emphatically deny before this committee that we
are a Communist-dominated union.
Mr. Arens. You, of course, have done an awful lot to throw the
Communists out of your union ; is that correct ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. We depend upon the good sense of our members
to see to it that they have the proper kind of people to represent them.
Senator Butler. May I proceed with this just a moment? I want
you to go along with your statement, but I do want to get this one
thought in the record. It has been said from time to time by a great
number of witnesses, including the certain officers of the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, that your UE union has consistently fol-
lowed the Communist line. Do you deny that allegation?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I certainly do, Mr. Senator, Up until 1948
this union was affiliated with the CIO. I was vice president in the
Congress of Organizations myself — the Congi-ess of Industrial Or-
ganizations. Up until 1948 we did not have a single disagreement
inside of that organization. We supported all of its policies, and I
think that practically everything that was voted upon in that organ-
ization was unanimous.
Senator Butler. But such a statement was made by the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, was it not?
Mr. Fitzgerald. It was, after 1948, when we refused to be domi-
nated by even them.
Senator Butler. Do you know what that was based upon ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. It was based, I suppose, upon a desire on the
part of the Congress of Industrial Organizations to inflict their type
of domination on the international unions that were affiliated with that
organization.
Senator Butler. And do you think that was true of each of the 12
or 13 unions that they expelled from their membership ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am only here. Senator, in the capacity as a
representative of the UE. I have no knowledge of what went on inside
of those organizations.
224 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Butler. Mr. Fitzgerald, I don't want to disturb you in
your statement. I will ask you one more question : If you were con-
vinced that there were Communists in labor organizations that con-
trolled the activity of the organization, what would be your method
of getting rid of that influence ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Senator, I think that if I knew of a situa-
tion where I knew that Communists or any outside group whatsoever,
outside of that union, was controlling or dominating the organization,
I think I w^ould make that fact known to the membership, and I have
every confidence in the members of the trade-union movement, and I
know that if they felt that it was being dominated by an outside force,
whether it be Communists or any other outside group, they would put
an end to that domination and kick them out of office.
Senator Butler. That leads me to another question that I wasn't
going to ask you. I tell you in good faith I will not pursue this line
too far, because I want to hear your statement about this legislation.
But we held hearings in Pittsburgh, for instance, in connection with
your union.
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right, Senator.
Senator Butler. We had, what, 12 or 13 officers of your local union
appear before our task force in Pittsburgh.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir.
Senator Butler. Of that number, we had — and don't hold me to
these figures because my memory might not serve me well — 11 out of
the 12 hid behind the fifth amendment ; did they not. Counsel ?
Mr. Arens. And they were identified by live witnesses as mem-
bers of the party.
Senator Butler. And they were identified by live witnesses as
members of the party. Now, what would you say about that in con-
nection with the members of the union ? You suppose the membership
of the union continues to elect such people as that, puts them in our key
industrial plants. What would you do? We have a problem here.
AVhat is your answer to it ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. First let me say, Mr. Chairman, on that partic-
ular subject that you are raising, while I was not present in Pittsburgh
at your hearings, I am aware of them. I very frankly don't like the
expression of hiding behind the fifth amendment. I don't think at
any time that an individual, a citizen of this country, invokes the priv-
ileges guaranteed him under the Constitution of the United States, he
is hiding.
Senator Butler. I realize that, and those witnesses were offended
genuinely or otherwise that we would suspect that they were hiding
Ijchind the fifth amendment. But they refused to answer questions
touching upon their activities. Let's put it that way.
Mr. Fitzgerald. In many instances, these witnesses that have
appeared, and identified individuals as Communists — in fact I think
most all of these people that appeared before you there — denied
emphatically that they were engaged in espionage or sabotage.
Senator Butler. No, Mr. Fitzgerald, you are wrong about that.
Some of them went so far as to say, and the hearings are here
Mr. Fitzgerald. I say most of them.
Senator Butler. That is true ; most of them did. But some of them
testified that they, at the direction of the Kremlin or other Russian
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 225
authority, would not bear arms for the United States, would not work
in plants. Am I right. Counsel ? I do not want to put things in the
record that are not correct. But here we have a situation of people
who are officers of a local union, dominating some 25,000 employees
in the Turtle Creek Valley of Pennsylvania, doing the most secret
work. Some of them say they will not bear arms for the United States,
some of them say they would not hesitate to harm the United States,
and 11 out of the 12 of them refused to answer whether or not they
were Communists or engaged in Communist activities. Now, that
is a real problem that faces the people of this country.
Now, I am asking you, as a good American what would you do
about that situation ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. From my understanding of your hearings in Pitts-
burgh, Senator, no officer of the UE answered questions in the way
that you just stated that questions were answered there.
Senator Butler. Mr. Fitzgerald, you may be right, but I will ask —
the hearings are here.
Mr. Arens. They have not been released, Senator.
Senator Butler. The hearings have not been released.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Nixon just informed me that there was one
fellow who was a steward in one of our plants in Erie, a shop steward,
who refused to answer those questions and claimed the privilege of the
fifth amendment on that ; that no other representative of this union
that was there made any such statements as you say, and in fact all
of them denied very emphatically that they ever had or ever w^ould
engage in espionage or sabotage or anything of that kind.
Mr. Arens. Communists don't believe in that, do they ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know, sir, what Communists believe in.
Senator Butler. I stand corrected, then, on the record. But I do
say this, that all out of 12 men of the UE union that appeared before
our committee in Pittsburgh refused to answer questions touching
upon their activities. And indeed some of them even refused to say
where they went to school.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, that is an indication of how mistrustful
working people at least are today of the committees that are roam-
ing around the country, Senator. They have great fear of those
things. They have great fear of them. I am not questioning your
committee or I am not impugning motives of the committee when I
say that. But there is real, genuine fear on the part of working people
with what is going on in the country today with committees.
Senator Welker. May I have a question?
Senator Butler. Yes, indeed, Senator Welker.
Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, you started to say that the men
called before congressional committees feared witnesses who I as-
sumed had testified that they knew the member of the union to be a
Communist. Is that correct?
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right.
Senator Welker. I did not attend the hearing in Pittsburgh, nor
have I read anything about it, but I assume, from your informa-
tion, that certain of the witnesses who appeared in Pittsburgh had
been identified by these so-called witnesses who said they were mem-
bers of the Communist Party.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes.
226 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Welker. And you say that that has brought about a great
deal of fear by the unions and officers of the union ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right, sir.
Senator Welker. And you think it is a serious problem 2
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very much so.
Senator Welker. These roving congressional committees that rep-
resent the American people, that your men are afraid to testify because
of, I take it, these people who, the least that you can say about them,
have committed perjury against these witnesses, or against your
members.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me tell you what happened. Senator, there in
Pittsburgh.
Senator Welker. Then you tell me, if you will answer that. Your
men are afraid of these witnesses who have identified your member-
ship or groups as being members of the Communist Party; is that
correct ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. They are not only afraid of these witnesses, they
are afraid of the whole atmosphere that prevails in the country at the
present time, the whole atmosphere of suspicion.
Senator Welker. I suppose you are afraid of these witnesses who
have come before congressional committees and identified certain
people as being Communists. Now, that is correct, is it not?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very fearful of them.
Senator Welker. Well, you are mindful of the fact that those wit-
nesses are under oath, are you not ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I understand that they are under oath, but
I understand that it is privileged testimony. I do not know of any
evidence of any one being able to bring any action against them because
of testimony that they bring before a committee.
Senator Welker. I would like to ask you this one question : Have
you or any member of your organization ever attempted to prosecute,
by filing a criminal complaint against any of these witnesses you fear
for the crime of perjury?
Mr. Fitzgerald. We are primarily engaged
Senator Welker. Answer the question. Have you or any of your
organization ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator, if you want to ask the questions and an-
swer them too, it is all right. I cannot answer questions the way you
want me to do. I am perfectly willing to answer any question you ask
me in my own way. But I don't see how I can answer the questions
just exactly the way you want me to.
Senator Welker. I do not want to argue with you, Mr. Fitzgerald,
because I will tell you this, that if I ever felt that one of these so-called
informers that you are afraid of, committed perjury under oath be-
fore this committee, I would lend every assistance I could to you or any
aggreived man to see that that man went to the penitentiary. But
the question I want to ask you is have you or any other person in your
union, to your knowledge, ever attempted to prosecute one of these
individuals for the crime of perjury?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir ; we have not. We haven't the money, the
time, or the inclination to do so.
Senator Welker. I believe, then, that you would allow your union
to be smeared and slandered and lied about and not have the time, the
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 227
inclination or the money to go down to the district attorney and insist
upon a warrant?
Mr. Fitzgerald. We have confidence enough in our membership to
know that they will see through these smears and lies.
Senator Butler. Have you ever reviewed the report of the CIO in
connection with your union ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I have never even seen it, sir. Again, Mr. Chair-
man, I say we would like to have the same privilege that industry has
in testifying on the bills that are pending before this committee.
Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, I am sure you will not object to
this question : I was very much impressed with your statement about
this allegation that has gone throughout the country that your union
was kicked out of CIO. And you are under oath here. I am im-
pressed by that, because I am not one to use an accusation that is easily
made and hard to disprove. It is your testimony that that statement
that you were kicked out of CIO because of Communist domination
is false ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. It is my testimony. Senator, that we withdrew from
the CIO in September or October of 1949. We withdrew because the
CIO tried to dominate this organization in a political way. They
passed a resolution endorsing the Truman administration and prac-
tically the entire Democratic Party, and said that any international
union that did not conform with that was violating the policies of the
CIO. We said at that time that we were not going to be dominated
by any one, that we were going to permit our members to freely choose
who they wished to choose as representatives in the Government of
the United States. After that, they set up a raiding, venture on our
organization.
Senator Welker. That is what I want to get into.
Mr. Fitzgerald, if their accusation was false that you were kicked out
of their union because of Communist domination, that would ox)en the
gate for raiding in every type of a union.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Of course. That is why they did it.
Senator Welker. Every type of an independent union.
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right.
Senator Butler. Wliy did you not bring charges against the CIO
then?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Bring charges against the CIO ?
Senator Butler. Yes. Why didn't you assert your legal right to
show that the CIO was smearing your union and illegally calling your
union Communist dominated, because when they do that they are call-
ing the officers of that union Communists, aren't they ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, sir, they set up this raiding program, as I
was trying to
Senator Butler. Answer that question. That is a very actionable
word. That is actionable per se. And you could not sit as the head
of a union and have some other national union or international union
say that you are Communist-dominated or that your union is Com-
munist-dominated when you know it is not true, and do nothing about
it. Why would you let the CIO do that ?
Mr. Fitzgi:rald. On the best advice of our legal department, on the
advice that we received from our legal department, the fact that some-
one calls you in this country Communist dominated, or Communist
228 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
controlled, or accuses you of following the Communist line, there is
no more basis for suit there
Senator Butler. Wait a minute. They not only do that, they call
you Communist dominated and then they follow it up with the next
local union to raid your union, and take your treasury away from you
and take your membership away from you, and still you don't do any-
thing about it.
Mr. Fitzgerald. All I know is that we still have a strong, powerful
union. We represent over 300,000 people in our industry and I think
we are doing something about it.
Senator Butler. Tell us what it is.
Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, do you not think you would be
doing a lot more about it had you made it plain to the American people
before today that that accusation was false in its entirety ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. My God, Senator, we have been making it plain
every day since it was first leveled against us. I have testified before
any number of Senate and House committees. I have repeated this
story on dozens of occasions. Other officers of this union have gone
around to the people and we have repeatedly denied these accusations.
This certainly is not the first time we have done it.
Senator Welker. Very well. Now, you say that your best legal
advice tells you that that accusation is not actionable. Have you ever
even filed a lawsuit against CIO for that ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we
Senator Welker. Actual slander and libel.
Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; we did not file a lawsuit against the CIO on
that. We filed a lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board
when they tried to take our bargaining rights away from us, using the
same
Senator Butler. You were on pretty safe ground there; were you
not? You could win that?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Using the same labels, and we were sustained in
the courts, in the Federal courts on that.
Senator Welker. Why didn't you file an injunction against CIO ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Because we know of no way it can be done. On
the advice of our counsel we just did not.
Senator Welker. Very well. But you didn't file a lawsuit. The
counsel does not decide these things, the court decides them.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, on many occasions, before this committee, I
suppose as the result of testimony that you have heard, this committee
has said that the United Electrical Workers was a Communist-domi-
nated union, that it was going to be investigated. We deny that alle-
gation. We have no intentions of suing you. We expect that we will
be able to prove to our membership, and eventually to the working
people at large throughout this country that those are false accusa-
tions.
Mr. Arens. Do you deny that James Matles is a Communist agent?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Again, Mr. Chairman, could I have the same
privilege that industry representatives had here ?
Senator Butler. Go ahead.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not going to repeat, of course, but I assume
that you gentlemen will agree with me, as many other committees
have, that a strong trade-union movement in the United States is not
only necessary but it is an asset to our democratic way of living.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 229
Senator ButleR. I do not think anybody will argue that point with
you.
Mr. Fitzgerald. We feel, as I said, that this legislation weakens not
only our union but every trade union in the country. We think that
one of the main quarrels that we have with it is that it will take away
from the working people of this country the right to choose the kind
of a union that we wish to have represent them, and it will also take
the right away from the working people of this country to elect, in
a democratic way, the officers whom they desire to represent them.
We have made a study of the legislation and we think that that would
deprive them of that right. I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman,
if there is no objection on your part, to let our legislative represent-
ative, Mr. Nixon, take a few minutes of your time to generally de-
scribe this legislation to you. After he gets through, I would like
again to come back on and do a little talking to you about our organ-
ization.
Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. Mr. Nixon can proceed.
Mr. Nixon. Mr Chairman, I know that this is the first time in
your legislative hearings that you have had a witness, I believe, who
had the opportunity to take the position and inclination to take the
position of general opposition to the three bills that are pending be-
fore this committee. I want to tell you that we appreciate the privi-
lege of coming before you as we have done for many years, to give you
our views on the legislation.
You have three pieces of legislation before this committee. There
is your own bill, the Butler bill, there is the Goldwater bill which m'sls
transferred to you from the Senate Labor Committee and on which
hearings were held last year, and there is Senator McCarran's bill,
S.23. It is our very considered opinion that this legislation comprises
the most far-reaching proposals for regimentation and Government
control of unions that has ever been seriously advanced in the United
States. It is our considered opinion that these bills, if they were en-
acted into law, would end the right of workers freely to choose their
own union leaders, by giving a Government bureau absolute licens-
ing power to determine which unions shall be permitted to exist and
which workers shall be permitted to be union leaders.
Senator Welker. May I interrupt you ? That is a general accusa-
tion against all three bills?
Mr. Nixon. This is a general characterization about all three bills.
Senator Welker. All three bills ?
Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir.
Senator Butler. Mr. Nixon, is that a valid comment on those bills,
granted that the workers themselves elect to high offices in these unions,
persons known to be Communists ?
Mr. Nixon. I think as we go along we will develop our position
clearly.
Senator Butler. This is by way of enlightenment for me. Wliat I
am getting at is this : The law provides that a company union is a
slanted union, and that makes it illegal, because it may be under the
domination of a company. If you elect a person known to be a Com-
munist who is devoted to the overthrow of this Government by force,
and put that person at the head of a union, don't you think that the
Congress or the people generally should have something to say about
230 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
that ? I do not see how it necessarily destroys the union or interferes
with legitimate union activity. But you go ahead.
Mr. Nixox. Sir, as I understand the prescription of company unions,
the point there is exactly that because of interference by the company,
which Congress has decided has extraordinary economic power aris-
ing from his position as employer, the free choice of the workers has
been destroyed, and the point against company unions is that this is
not a genuine reflection of free choice. That is the point.
Mr. Arens. How about interference by the Communist Party?
Mr. Nixon. I think that there is no economic power even to be
alleged in a worker-employer relationship that could be said to be
comparable here. The point, to state for a moment, with the National
Labor Relations Act, and what at least is still the philosophy of the
Labor Management Act is that the employer has peculiar powers aris-
ing from his position as the man who can hire and fire, pay wages
and so on, and that out of this, given the history of labor, the Govern-
ment decides to try to protect the workers from any limitation on
their freedom of choice. If, after due deliberations it finds that there
has been such activity by the employer which prevents the workers
by the use of his power of economic coercion and influence from exer-
cising free choice, then that is proscribed. Now, it seems to me this is
not only contradictory to what I say, but it happens to illustrate the
emphasis on free choice which I make.
Senator Butler. I get that point, you ought to have a free choice.
But here, the result is in the exercise of the free choice you have
persons who, in some cases, are known to be Communists who are in
these plants who are the heads of these unions, who are directing
Communist activities. Now, what are you going to do about that ?
Mr. Nixon. Any person who is a Communist, or who is alleged to
be a Communist, in the present circumstances, who is elected an officer
of the union, has to overcome by some kind of quality of relationship
with workers, tremendous obstacles. He does not go into the elec-
tions, if he is elected, with big advantages on his side. He has nothing
comparable to the economic power of the employer.
Senator Butler. We have heard much testimony from highly re-
spected and competent witnesses that the Communist technique in
having these key people at the original meeting where the officers are
chosen has overcome the will of the worker. Have you anything to
say about that ?
Mr. NixoN. Yes. Of course when Mr Fitzgerald — ■ —
Senator Butler. Will you cover this in your statement?
Mr. NixoN. Yes.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr Chairman, I had hoped to be able to use our
organization as an example of how this could not happen, the points
that you are raising.
Senator Butler. Go ahead.
Mr. Nixon. I am trying to make a constructive approach.
Senator Butler. I am trying to guide you along the lines of in-
formation for this committee. And I assure you that this committee
is not antilabor, and we don't have any idea of busting any unions.
We want light on this very important subject. This is a matter of
great public interest, and of great public concern. I want to get all
the light on it I can get.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 231
Mr. Nixon. I know you yourself have said that you are aware of
the big step that is being considered here. I know you understand
the importance of that.
Senator Butler. I certainly do. I fully understand it and I shall
conduct myself accordingly.
Mr. Nixon. I think my presentation will show that we are making
a responsible approach.
Senator Butler. Good, you go right ahead.
Mr. Nixon. It is necessary, as a starting point, to lay out this prin-
ciple of free choice. It means democracy in our unions in the same
sense as you have it in the country. To see what it means and see
what the implication is of any limitation on that free choice. The
fundamental principle motivating all branches of organized labor
and all civil liberties organizations in their opposition to such legis-
lative proposals is nowhere better stated than in the unanimously
supported report of the resolutions committee to the 1953 AFL con-
vention, which said, and I quote :
We cannot emphasize too strongly that the trade unions need to He genuinely
free trade unions and cannot represent the vital interests of the working people
and that democracy is jeopardized, when their organization's structure and
leadership are determined by any one outside their membership. This holds
true for every democratic country.
We think that that is a very excellent statement of basic principles,
and that is what lies behind our own opposition to these proposals.
Mr. Fitzgerald has already indicated but I would like to quickly re-
state the fundamental principles upon which we base our opposition
to the legislation before you. First is the opposition that the gen-
eral welfare of our country and its people requires the existence of
strong, independent, and powerfully effective trade unions. We be-
lieve this for two reasons. We believe that only through collective
bargaining carried out by strong trade unions can realistic progress
be made toward the wage and working conditions needed to guaran-
tee the purchasing power and high living standards required to offset
depression and create conditions of full employment.
We emphasize this because there is everywhere now a concern about
our economic future, and we say this is the time when steps need to
be taken to strengthen unions in the protection of the general eco-
nomic welfare of the country rather than the opposite. We believe
this also, that effective genuine democracy in our country, based upon
the popular rule of the people, requires a vigorous and powerful
trade-union movement, to oft'set on behalf of the ordinary people the
vast, economic, and political and propaganda power of giant indus-
trial and financial interests.
I am not going to stop to discuss this. You understand what we
mean. Perhaps we have a difference. But I think the view of all
trade unions would be that we have to have as an indestructible back-
bone of democracy in our country, strength, collective bargaining,
organized strength in the ranks of workers, if they are to offset the
very real facts of life in our modern industrial society in which we
have great powerful economic forces that have to be balanced by the
strength of labor.
Secondly, that only genuinely and completely free trade unions, con-
trolled exclusively by their members who have full freedom of choice
of their union, their union policies, and their union officers and who
232 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
enjoy uninhibited political freedoms as workers can liave the inde-
pendent strength and effectiveness required to protect the economic
welfare and democracy of the country. This means that no outside
force, whether that be governmental, employer, religious, or political
should be substituted for membership control of unions if those unions
are to be effective. This basic premise is the same as that upon which
our whole democratic society is based. In our unions as in our
country, anything that strengthens, deepens, and extends popular
democratic control serves the security and welfare of the country.
Anything that limits or interferes with that democratic control weak-
ens our security. It is on this basis of these premises that we oppose
the Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran bills, and any other variations
of these measures or proposals which limit the right of workers to
choose their own unions and their own union officers and to exercise
their unrestricted individual political freedom of belief and associ-
ation.
We believe that Federal legislation must protect and in no way limit
the absolute right of workers to freedom of choice. We are staking
the security of our country, we are staking the welfare of our country,
we are staking everything that we believe in on the confidence we have
that the working people, preserving their own independent political
freedoms in the country and in their unions will safeguard every in-
terest of our country, and that there is no substitute to be made for
that, and there is no justification for anybody saying "You don't know
what is good for you. We will help you decide."
There is no substitute for the basic democracy of unions as a safe-
guard of the effectiveness of those unions. And, of course, the wel-
fare of the country.
Mr. Arens. Before he leaves that point, Mr. Chairman, may I ask
him a question ?
Senator Butler. Yes.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Nixon, before the workers themselves can make a
free and independent choice of their representatives in a labor organi-
zation, it is essential, is it not, that the workers know the facts with
respect to whether or not a given individual is a Communist ?
Mr. Nixon. It is essential that they know, that they be in a position
to judge the candidates the same way that it is essential for every
citizen to be able to judge a candidate for public office.
Mr. Arens. The worker working at a rate does not have access to
security files of this Government to inform him as to whether or not
James Matles or Julius Emspak or any one of a number of people
who are currently in UE are Communists, do they ?
Mr. Nixon. We are living in a real world, Mr. Arens. You can
be secure that in every election to which we go, whether it is election
for bargaining rates for our 300,000 people, or whether it is an indi-
vidual election of officers, we get this stuff thrown at us in every way,
in every direction. I don't want to quibble with you. We say it is
just fantastic, the stuff that is thrown at us. But for the purpose of
your question, you can be sure that our elections do not proceed in a
vacuum where these charges are not made. They are made. All of
the testimony is thrown into our election. We go into those elections
and we say to workers, "These things are not true. This is true, this is
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 233
the situation, and judge by your contact with our union, its record,
judge by the record of its people."
And we
Senator Butler. Mr. Nixon, is not one of the strong tilings that
you have in your favor, and one of the things that you answer these
wavering workers with, do you not say to them, "Look, the National
Labor Relations Board, a Government agency, has certified us and
said that we are as clean and as pure as we can be"? Is not that
one of the answers that you give them? Do you not invoke the
agency of Government to give you crystal pureness that maybe you
don't have ?
Mr. Nixon. Since 1947 we have not been relying on the prestige of
the NLRB to sustain us very much.
Senator Eastland. Answer his question.
Senator Butler. But you are certified by the NLRB.
Senator Eastland. Answer the question yes or no.
Mr. Nixon. Yes ; we are certified.
Senator Butler. And you have told employees that "here this fine
Government agency is behind us. How can we be Communists?"
Mr. Nixon. I tell you what we have done in that connection. We
have made the observation that our officers have repeatedly signed
affidavits
Senator Butler. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, yes. And you have
also told them that "This great Government agency is behind us;
how can anybody say we are Communists when this Government
agency certifies us ?"
Do you not tell the people that ?
Mr. Nixon. No, we do not do that. Senator.
Mr. Arens. On these non-Communist affidavits that you just
alluded to, you know it is a fact, do you not, that these officers after
they sign these non-Communist affidavits come before this commit-
tee and throw the fifth amendment at us after we have had live
witnesses name them as Communists ; is that not a fact ?
Mr. NixoN. The affidavits speak for themselves, and the actions
of our people safeguarding themselves when they come before com-
mittees also speaks for itself.
Mr. Arens. Does the UE leadership tell these people that these
people are Communists, that the secretary-treasurer is a Communist,
that James Matles, the director of organization, is a Communist, that
live witnesses under oath before a committee of the United States
Congress have identified scores of your key people as Communist
agents ? Do you tell your membership that ?
Mr. Nixon. No.
Mr. Arens. Of course you don't.
Mr. Nixon. Just a moment. I had not finished my answer, Mr.
Arens.
Mr. Arens. Go ahead.
Mr. Nixon. I said no, of course we do not. We tell them the facts
that they have signed five non-Communist affidavits. We quote ta
them, like from the hearings of the subcommittee —
Senator Butler. Do you tell them, Mr. Nixon, when they appear
before the committees of the Congress and are asked whether or not
234 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
they were Communists at the time they made that affidavit, they refuse
to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment ?
Mr. Nixon. If we don't, yon can be sure our enemies do. We dis-
cuss it very tlioroughly, and we fight it out on a democratic basis with
our membership. I think you ought to recognize, for example, a
statement like this, since you raise this question. These are the
hearings of the subcommittee on Appropriations. These are in 1952.
Mr, Mclnerney, who was the Assistant Attorney General in charge
of the Criminal Division, was being questioned by Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. You have cases, have you not, in which the FBI has
furnished proof of Communist Party membership prior to the signing of the
non-Communist oath and Communist Party membership subsequent to the
signing of that oath?
Mr. MclNERNEY. No.
Senator McCarthy. Communist Party activities?
Mr. MclNERNEY. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Attending Communist meetings?
Mr. MclNERNEY. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Are you sure of that?
Mr. MclNERNEY. We process those cases at least four times. We have sent
them out to the United States attorneys to institute grand jury procedings on
them if they can develop the proof. I have looked at the UEW cases myself, and
I recall statements in the FBI reports that are unusual in the FBI reports, such
as "no evidence of Communist Party activity since execution of non-Communist
oath."
Of course we use that kind of stuff.
Mr. Arens. Do you tell your people what the members do is resign
from the party the day before they sign the non-Communist affidavit
and then go on under Communist discipline? Do you ever tell them
that?
Mr. Nixon. I am not going to jump at loaded questions.
Mr. Arens, Do you ever tell them that ?
Mr. Nixon, We tell them no lies.
Mr. Arens, Wliat would you do to drive the Communists out of
theUE?
Senator Eastland. You are telling no lies ? Wliat do you mean by
that statement?
Mr. Nixon. I meant we do not tell them what he said as a prop-
osition.
Senator Eastland, Well, if what he said was true, would it be a
lie ? I mean if it was true, of course,
Mr. Nixon. I will answer that without any hesitancy. If it was
true, it would not be a lie.
Senator Easti.and. Would it be a lie ?
Mr, Nixon, Of course, absolutely.
Senator Eastland, Your officials have never been members of the
Communist Party ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr, Chairman, could I once again ask that as
representatives of a trade union we be given the same privileges before
your committee as industry people have been given ?
Senator Butler. We will let you malce your statement and then we
will cross-examine, if that is the way you want it.
Senator Welker, I think here, we have been going back and forth,
I think the Senator is entitled to that.
Senator Eastland. I want it answered.
Mr, Nixon, What was the question ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 235
Senator Eastland. I ask if the oflScials had ever been members of
the Communist Party.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Senator, I only can repeat what I said. We
figure that this is an impartial committee, seriously studying the legis-
lative aspects of the three bills that are pending betore you, that
representatives of industry in the past week have been down here and
have been permitted to give their testimony and then asked questions.
I will tell you frankly, we will be willing to be asked questions after
we get our statement on the record.
Senator Eastland. I want you to answer that question, because
it certainly is persuasive as to your testimony.
Mr. Fitzgerald. All I can say is that the officers of this organiza-
tion, each year, sign an affidavit saying that they are not members of
the Communist Party. We deny emphatically accusations of espio-
nage or sabotage or any allegations of a conspiracy on the part of this
union. We figure that we are good, loyal Americans.
Senator Eastland. On the part of the union ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. We figure the officers of the union are good, loyal
Americans, interested in the welfare of our country. We requested
an opportunity to come here
Senator Eastland. Now will you please answer my questions. Have
they ever been members of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. All I can say, again. Senator is that we are sign-
ing-
Senator Eastland. Mr. Chairman, I think he ought to answer the
question yes or no.
Senator Butler. I direct that you so answer the question.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that we are
getting the same kind of treatment here
Senator Butler. Well, will you answer the question ?
Mr. Fitzgerald (continuing). That industry members — I am lead-
ing up to an answer.
Senator Butler. I think we have not been too hard on you.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am leading up to an answer on it, Senator. We
came here to testify on legislative aspects of this bill, and I again
want to appeal to you to let us complete our testimony. We are not
going to run away. We will stay here. We will answer your ques-
tion.
Senator Eastland. I want my question answered now. You want
to make a statement, and the influence that I think the answer to
that question will have a lot to do with the influence of your testimony
to this committee and to the Congress. If you have never been a mem-
ber of the Communist Party, say that, if that is the fact.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Do I understand. Senator, that you have directed
me to answer that question?
Senator Butler. I feel that you should answer that question.
Mr. Fitzgerald. You have directed me to answer it.
Senator Butler. Yes.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Has any other witness during the course of these
hearings, these present hearings, been directed to answer questions
by the committee?
Senator Jenner. Many witnesses have been directed to answer
questions.
236 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Fitzgerald, You mean during the present hearings on this
particular legislation that is pending here.
Senator Butler. Yes.
Mr. Fitzgerald. This is on the legislative aspects of the hearing, on
the legislative aspects of the hearing.
Senator Butler. Well, it is very apj)arent, Mr. Fitzgerald, that
you do not want to answer the question. Why do you not want to
answer the question ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't want to answer it because I don't think it
is pertinent at this particular time.
Senator Eastland. We are the judges of that,
Mr. Fitzgerald, So that we will not waste time, and we will get
back to it later on when I get to my part of the testimony, for the pres-
ent time, I suppose you want me to claim the privilege of the fifth
amendment, which I will do.
Senator Butler, We do not want you to claim anytliing.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Then I will claim it, sir.
Mr. Arens, Do you feel that a truthful answer to the question by
the Senator from Mississippi will furnish information which might
be used in a criminal prosecution of you ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I feel that under the Constitution of the United
States that I have the right to claim the privilege of the fifth
amendment.
Senator Butler. That is all right. You have claimed it, and we
will proceed.
Mr. Nixon. I would like to direct the attention of the committee
back to the basic question of the legislation pending before this com-
mittee and its merits and its possible demerits.
Senator Welker, How long is it going to take you?
Mr, Nixon, It will not take me very long, sir.
Senator Butler. No; I want to hear it, I want it to be on this
record,
Mr, Nixon, We think that the proposals before this committee have
to be considered in the framework of a long and uninterrupted history
of the fight against organized labor and collective bargaining by
dominant employers in this country. The Butler, Goldwater, and
McCarran bills which are being pushed by the NAM, the chamber of
commerce, and giant corporations are obviously a part, in our opinion,
of continued antagonism to organized labor.
Senator Butler, May I break in just for a moment? As far as I
am personally concerned, I cannot answer for the McCarran bill and
I cannot answer for the Goldwater bill, but, as far as I am personally
concei-ned, I have not talked to one member of management in con-
nection with that bill, I have had absolutely no contact with the
NAM or any other similar organization. And, as I have consistently
said, that bill may not be the proper approach, but I feel that this
is a matter of great public interest, I feel that the people of America
are entitled to be protected against the evils of infiltration of Com-
munists not only in labor organizations but in any field. This is one
of the fields that the Internal Security Committee is looking into, I
can assure you and all other people of labor that I am not the tool of
anybody, I do not take orders from anybody.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 237
Mr. Nixon. You will notice in our statement that we are very
careful to not put our position down into the level of charging moti-
vations to you or anybody.
Senator Butler. I wanted you to know that.
Mr. Nixon. We have tried to keep this on the level of the basic
issue and off personalities which we think the level a Senate com-
mittee warrants.
Senator Butler. Just a minute, Mr. Nixon.
Will 1 : 30 be all right with you if we recess now ?
Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir.
Senator Butler. This task force will stand in recess until 1 : 30 this
afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 12 : 10 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 1 : 30 p. m. the same day.)
43903—54 16
238 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Welker. The meeting will come to order.
The record will show that Senator Welker, of Idaho, is acting as
chairman in lieu of Senator Butler.
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT J. FITZGERALD, PRESIDENT, UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
(TIE), ACCOMPANIED BY RUSS NIXON, LEGISLATIVE REPRE-
SENTATIVE—Resumed
Senator Welker. Mr. Nixon, when we suspended for the noon
recess you were testifying. You will proceed.
Mr. Nixon. It will not take long for me to summarize the basic
statement of the union. Just to sum it up, we had indicated our op-
position to any legislation which limits the right of the workers to
choose their own unions and their own union officers and to exercise
their own individual political freedom and belief and association.
When we closed, I was making the point that in our opinion the
proposals before this committee have to be evaluated in the framework
of what we consider a long and uninterrupted campaign against or-
ganized labor by very powerful employer interests in this country.
The fact is that this type of legislation, and more than that, specifi-
cally these bills, are being supported by the National Association of
Manufacturers and by the Chamber of Commerce and by other large
corporations of this country. The employer has always sought, in
our opinion, ways and means of limiting the effectiveness of labor's
united strength. Sometimes this has been to prevent any contem-
plative action ; other times that has been when that effort has not suc-
ceeded to put into effect unions that they can dominate.
In our opinion it has always been an effort to limit the democratic
control of unions which their maximum effectiveness is based upon.
We feel this very strongly now because, very frankly, sir, with the
tightening business situation throughout the country we are facing-
tightening situations in our shops, and the record is one of increased
pressure to speed up work, and the record is one in our experience at
this time of increased pressure to reduce wages.
We cannot avoid the conclusion that, at the same time that the em-
ployers for what they think to be satisfactory reasons in a given eco-
nomic situation are turning on the screws in the shops, they are also
finding it necessary to seek further legislation which will limit the
strength of the labor movement, the strength of the labor movement
to protect itself.
We feel that these measures pending before this committee are part
of that campaign.
Now the next point I have to make to this committee is that such
antilabor objectives are rarely, if ever, openly stated as such, and
anyone who has studied the history of the labor movement in this
country knows that it is a history of attacks on workers' efforts to
organize and that these attacks have more often than not proceeded
under a camouflage of being directed against radicals, agitators,
foreign agents, anarchists. Socialists, and Communists.
This is a simple matter of fact of the history of the labor movement.
You may recall that when the Senate Labor Committee in 1938 in-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 239
vestigated this whole area of the interference with workers' civil
rights to organize, they reached a conclusion in their record which
said:
Although, as the investigation reveals, the employer directs his spy forces
against any kind of union activity, he cloaks his hostility under the pretext
that he is defending himself and the country against communism.
That is the end of the quote.
Senator Welker. That was in 1938, you say ?
Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. I believe it was the La Follette committee
hearings, sir.
Very briefly, the history of the thirties which saw the organization
of mass-production industries in this country, and they^ had to or-
ganize and make their progress at every stage of the fight in this
case. The House Un-American Activities Coimnittee under the
leadership of Martin Dies was a principal employer weapon used
against CIO organization.
The widely distributed antilabor leaflet entitled "Join the CIO and
Build a Soviet America," the attacks on John L. Lewis and Sidney
Hillman as Soviet agents, and the Un-American Activities Committee
labeled the CIO Political Action Committee as a Communist front.
These are all symbols of the employer disguise of their attack which
we think was directed at the collective bargaining trend of the workers.
It is our opinion today that the same kind of camouflage is being
used against the labor movement and for very much the same purposes.
Now the drive today proceeds not only in the traditional atmosphere
of radicalness but almost under a special smoke screen of propaganda
about sabotage and espionage.
In our opinion, this special propaganda base is required because the
content of the Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran legislation is so
extremely destructive of the democratic processes of union organiza-
tion that it requires a special shield.
Now a very close inspection of proceedings of the various hearings
around this whole question indicate that an atmosphere of sabotage
and espionage has been developed. We will try to show you this is
unwarranted as far as unions are concerned and is a false picture.
Fortunately, the facts are clear on this sabotage and espionage ques-
tion. One can search the records of all the investigating committees,
all the hearings, all the Government reports, all the testimony of anti-
labor companies, all the results of all the forces that are hungry for
evidence to support their espionage and sabotage tales, and yet this
fact remains : There has not been a single verified instance of union-
connected sabotage or espionage in any industrial establishment in
America.
Senator Welker. You are limiting that to what years ?
Mr. Nixon. Certainly it would cover all the years in which our union
has been in existence.
Senator Welker. Wlien did your union come into existence ?
Mr. Nixon. 1938, wasn't it? _ 1936, 1937, and 1938.
Senator Welker. I think it is common knowledge that at the start
of trade unionism there were some destructive forces at work. I recall
in my own State the Western Federation of Miners, it was one of
the disastrous things of our State, which alined labor against capital
and so forth, and at least charges were made of sabotage and destruc-
tion of mines.
240 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Nixon. My point, wliicli I think is important, and as far a&
what terminal points you may go back to, I think it is enough to say
that certainly within a recent period of 10 or 15 years — this is an
imjDortant thing — there has not been a single verified instance of union-
connected sabotage or espionage.
Mr. Arens. Could you help us on this point? J. Edgar Hoover
testified before us the other day.
Mr. Nixon. Yes.
Mr. Arens. He testified :
In regard to the infiltration of labor, the Communists regard labor unions
as instruments to be controlled and used to develop the Communist revolution.
A national conference held in August of this year of the Communist Party
reafBrnied the time-lionored premise that control of the labor union is of primary
importance to the development of the Communist revolution in this country.
What do you think about that ?
Mr. Nixon. I can only tell you what Mr. Fitzgerald has told you,^
that that is the position of the Communist Party, or it is the position
of any other outfit, whatever the nature. This union is inalterably
of)posed to domination of our organization by anyone that limits its
control by its membership.
Mr. Arens. How about the Communists in the union? Are you
opposed to Communists in the union ?
Senator Welker. Counsel, let him finish and then let him go
forward.
Mr. Nixon. I want to make one other point on this question of
sabotage and espionage. It is very frequently said as a sort of sec-
ondary position on this question, but that is true, there haven't been
verified instances, and we hold these hearings without anything on
the record. There is a lot of talk about it; it is in the papers, but
when you get down to it, you haven't a record and there has been
no instance.
As a matter of fact, we invite you to tell us if we are wrong. There
is the point that is made, but you have to worry about the future about
what might happen. Well, we are not altogether in a situation of a
vacuum either. We have gone through 3 years of a Korean war. This,
was a war which everybody recognizes was opposed by the left-wing
forces, certainly by the Communists and Communist associations in
this country. They did not believe that was a good step. They didn't
take quite the same position.
This would in normal circumstances, this would be the situation
where you would say, "Well, we will get some of this sabotage and
espionage." The same thing might be said about the whole period
of military production under the cold war. These are the circum-
stances to which you address your attention, and yet the fact remains
that there has not been a single evidence of union-connected sabotage
or espionage in the entire period of the cold war or in the entire period
of the Korean war.
Mr. Arens. When you say "union-connected," do you mean by a
labor organization or by Communist agents in a labor organization?
Mr. Nixon. By any workers who are acting in the capacity as union
representatives, as officers of a union, anything of that sort.
Mr. Arens. You are sure about your facts there now ?
Mr. Nixon. I invite you to suggest an exception.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 241
Mr. Arens. Well, we had testimony liere before this committee just
in the course of the last few days about the Communist-inspired strike
out here for political purposes when the employer was complying with
all of the requirements of the contract. It is a slow-up of production
of defense material. Would that not be something that might be in
jeopardy of national interests ?
Mr. Nixon. I am glad you mentioned that because that permits me
to point out what I am saying. Very frequently employers in the
bitter struggle of industrial conflict charge sabotage and it is familiar
grounds to say, "Well, this strike is directed in some way from a sabo-
tage point of view."
Mr. Arens. But there is not such a thing going on ?
Mr. Nixon. There has not been a single verified instance of that.
This committee has no verified instance.
Mr. Arens. Have you read the executive testimony before this com-
mittee ?
Mr. Nixon. Of course I haven't.
Mr. Arens. Then your statement is a little bit extravagant, that
this committee has no information.
Mr. Nixon. My statement was carefully made, and I said one can
search the records of all the investigating committees and all the
reports that I know about, all of the testimony that has been brought
in here by companies, and goodness knows, over the past several years
there have been company after company after company talking about
this question.
Mr. Arens. Let us take this illustration of it, if we may. Are you
familiar with the Bridges political strikes on the west coast and in
Hawaii for the purpose of tying up west coast shipping, inspired,
controlled, and directed by the Communists as repeatedly exposed
by congressional committees ?
Mr. NixoN. That is quite a question, Mr. Arens, because it has so
many presumptions that you know, of course, I wouldn't answer
that yes or no. You are assuming these are political strikes. I am
sure if the ILU were to come here they could establish beyond any
question of doubt the existence of collective bargaining differences
at the collective bargaining table.
Mr. Arens. They would have reasons, they would have rationaliza-
tion, they would have something they would say, but do you not con-
cur that the Bridges union on the west coast is controlled by the Com-
munists ?
Mr. NixoN. I think
Senator Welker. If he knows.
Mr. Nixon. I want to say this : I think it is impossible for a demo-
-cratic union to be controlled by the Communists.
Mr. Arens. You are saying it is impossible for black to be white.
I ask you if you do not as a labor man, a man in this field, concur that
the Bridges union is controlled by the Communists.
Mr. Nixon. I certainly do not because fi*om the best knowledge I
have of the ILU, and I know something about it as a democratic or-
ganization run by its members.
Mr. Arens. You believe that is completely inconsistent?
Mr. Nixon. As you say, I think that would be black being white.
If you have a democratic organization it is run by their members by
242 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
definition, and it cannot be run by somebody else because black cannot
be white.
Mr. Arens. If you have a Communist Party, is that run by the
members or by the dictates of the Kremlin ?
Mr. Nixon. The Communist Party ?
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Mr. Nixon. I couldn't testify here about how the Communist Party
is run.
Mr. Arens. You have no experience in that field ?
Mr. Nixon. I am not in any position to speak about the Communist
Party to tell you how they run themselves or anything.
Mr. Arens. Have you read about the Communist Party operations ?
Mr. Nixon. Well, that is a pretty general question.
Mr. Arens. Have you read about the Communist Party operations,
how they control organizations?
Mr. NixON. Well, I have read how they do, how they don't. I
just cannot give you any testimony.
Mr. Arens. Have you had any personal experience in this field?
Mr. NixoN. No; I cannot give you any testimony about the Com-
munist Party.
Mr. Arens. Do 3^011 have any personal experience in that field at
all?
Mr. NixoN. No ; I haven't any personal experience in that field.
Mr. Arens. You know, of course, that the two key people of the
IJE are Communist agents, James Matles and Julius Emspak?
Mr. Nixon. How did you put that?
Mr. Arens. You know that James Matles and Julius Emspak are
Communists ?
Mr. Nixon. I do not know that. I think I told you before if you
listened this morning that all the officers of this union for 5 years
have signed affidavits that they are not members of the Communist
Party.
Mr. Arens. You think that means they are not Communists if they
sign affidavits saying they are not Communists, is that correct?
Mr. Nixon. I would say that is evidence, wouldn't you, Mr. Arens?
Mr. Arens. Not with the Conmiunists. Do you not know that the
Communists have no regard for the truth, that they are dedicated to
treachery, deceit, and lying, or is that part of this fantasy that is being
developed by the bosses to destroy unions ?
Mr. Nixon. You make it easy to answer the question about Mr.
Matles and Mr. Emspak because I know from many years of associa-
tion with them that they are not motivated by lying or deceit or any-
thing of that sort.
Mr. Arens. Do you know that they are not Communists?
Mr. Nixon. They have signed affidavits for 5 years Avhich say at
the bottom that if you sign it falsely you are subject to criminal prose-
cution and fine.
Mr. Arens. Do you know that they are not Communists?
Mr. Nixon. I know they signed these affidavits.
Mr. Arens. Do you liave any other information that leads you to
believe they are not Communists?
Mr. Nixon. That is adequate for me. The oath of these men is
adequate.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 243
Mr. Arens. Are you prepared to testify under oatli that Matles and
Emspak are not Communists ?
Mr. Nixon. I wouldn't testify under oath that you are not a Com-
munist to my certain knowledge.
Mr. Arens. What has your labor union or your organization done
to oust the Communists from the organization ?
Mr. Nixon. To oust the Communists ^
Mr. Arens. Yes, to throw the Communists out of the UE. How
many have you thrown out ? What is this militant program to throw
Communists out so that they will not lead the union in paths of de-
struction to this Government?
Mr. NixoN. You understand the point I was making about sabotage
and espionage?
Mr. Arens. Do you not think the Communists are dedicated to
sabotage and espionage?
Mr. Nixon. If they are, then we have an absolute proof that there
are no Communists in our organization because we have had no in-
stance of any sabotage or espionage in our organization, and by your
own definition tliat would mean they are not there.
Mr. Arens. What have you done to throw^ the Communists out of
UE?
Mr. Nixon. I think the way to explain tliis to you and to relate it to
the legislation which is before this committee
Mr. Arens. You do not want to answer that question, do you ?
Mr. NixON. Just a moment, Mr. Arens. I will answer the question,
but I am also here testifying on legislation, so I want to relate every-
thing I say here to the issue before this committee. In our union we
don't drive anybody out of our union,
Mr. Arens. Even a Communist?
Mr. Nixon. Even a Republican or a Democrat.
Mr. Arens. How about a Communist?
Mr. Nixon. Or a Socialist or a Communist or a vegetarian. We
have a preamble in our organization which says that all members, all
workers in our industry are eligible on an equal basis to membership
and to participation in our organization. There is one test they have
to run, and you might as well understand it because it is the founda-
tion of our appearance.
Mr. Arens. This is crucial, you believe?
Mr. Nixon. This is the foundation of our appearance here.
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Mr. Nixon. One test that anyone has to run in our organization.
They have to stand before their fellow workers and be elected or de-
feated on the democratic vote of the workers, and we are saying here
with regard to the legislation there is no substitute for that. I don't
care what concerns you may have and what differences we might have,
the entire labor movement is united and goodness Iniows, we have
differences.
The entire labor movement is united in saying that there should
be no substitution for the rank-and-file democratic choice of unions
and union officers because once you open that Pandora's box, then you
open the way to destroying the freedom of labor.
Mr. Arens. Are you saying then that the Communist Party and
Communists are dedicated to democratic process of selection of lead-
ers such as we are supposed to know in this country, or would you
244 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
concur in my analysis that the Communist Party is a dictatorship, it
is a totalitarian organization in which they do not give a tinker's
dam about democratic processes as we know them in this country?
Mr, Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, we are not here to testify as ex-
perts on the Communist Party; that is not the reason we are here.
We are here to testify on legislation that is pending before the com-
mittee, and I would like again to say to you, let us get back on the
record on our statement here, and after Mr. Nixon gets through I
think I will be able to prove to this committee that we have a demo-
cratically controlled organization ; it is not dominated by any outside
force. Communist or otherwise, and will be able; in fact, we point
with pride that it is a model for other unions to follow, and I will
probably be able to cover some of the points that you are raising.
Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, I believe Mr. Nixon more or less
opened up that subject matter and invited that question. Personally
I wish that we could get the legislative matter finished, but since you
got into this field I believe I will permit the question to stand, and
then let us get back to the legislative feature, and you can do what
you want to about this other matter.
Mr. Nixon. Would you restate your question, Mr. Arens ?
Mr. Arens. I would prefer to have the reporter read it.
Senator Welker. Read it, please.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
Mr. Nixon. The answer is "No." I am not saying that, I am not
in a position and would not attempt to be in a position to testify to
you about the Communist Party here. What I can testify is about
our union.
Senator Welker. Now, Counsel, will you reserve that line of ex-
amining ?
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Mr. NixoN. Let me complete the point, which I think is a very im-
portant one on this question of sabotage and espionage.
Senator Welker. You are testifying now to the legislative matter ?
Mr. Nixon. That is right.
Senator Welker. Let us not get into extraneous matters.
Mr. NixoN. I am making the point, and I think the record will bear
it out.
Senator Welker. You have made the point no less than five times,
Mr. Nixon.
Mr. Arens. I was wondering if he has some specific provision of
this bill that he wants to object to and point out what he thinks is
objectionable, some specific provision. You have had a lot of gen-
eralities there about breaking up unions and all that sort of thing,
which is a straight Commie line.
Mr. NixoN. I beg your pardon ?
Mr. Arens. Straight Commie line, that anything that is after Com-
munists is supposed to have a hidden motive behind it to destroy some-
body's rights. That is a straight Commie line. Let me ask you this :
Do you have anything specifically that you want to protest in this bill ?
Is there anything in this bill that does all these things that you are
talking about here, destroying unions?
Mr. Nixon. Of course, everything in these bills that does that.
Mr. Arens. Point to one provision in this bill that destroys unions,
and I am not talking about some Communist organization masquerad-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 245
ing as a union ; I am talking about a bona fide union. You point to
something in this bill that would destroy a bona fide union, non- Com-
munist union, a clean union that works for the interests of laborers.
You point that out to us. I think the committee would be obliged
to have that information.
Mr. Nixon. The provision of the Butler and Goldwater bill —
Mr. Arens. Which provision is that that you have in mind ?
Mr. Nixon. The said provisions of the Butler and Goldwater bill set
up the Subversive Activities Control Board as an agency of five men or
women to have the power to say that under certain tests a union can be
proscribed, cannot be chosen as a bargaining agent by workers.
Mr. Arens. If it is Communist controlled.
Mr. Nixon. And that certain individuals are proscribed from being
candidates for union office.
Mr. Arens. If they are Communists.
Senator Welker. Let him finish, counsel.
Mr. Arens. I wanted to be sure his sentence was complete.
Mr. Nixon. All of us in the labor movement are agreed that the
language of both the Butler and the Goldwater bills is so broad that
it goes way beyond the question of any actions, illegal, by individuals
to encompass political censorship and control over unions.
Now I will give you two or tliree examples.
Mr. Arens. You would be helpful to the committee if you could also
suggest language, Mr. Nixon, which would drive Communists out of
labor organizations, out of defense establishments, and preclude cer-
tification by the National Labor Relations Board of Communist or-
ganizations masquerading as labor organizations.
Senator Welker. Counsel, you are going to confuse the witness. He
is on a line of thought now, and I cannot even follow. He told us he
was going to do something. Please wait until he finishes his line,
please.
Mr. Arens. All right, sir. What page are you on now ?
Mr. Nixon. I am going to address your attention to the Goldwater
bill, page 4.
Senator Welker. Do you have a copy of that ?
Mr. DuEEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Nixon. Just let me say before I start on this provision specifical-
ly that all the unions are agreed on this observation that I made.
The A. F. of L. and CIO alike, in spite of our many differences,
agree on this particular proposition that in setting up this kind of
test you are
Senator Welker. Wliat kind of test?
Mr. Nixon. Wliich I am now going to address the attention of the
committee to.
Senator Welker. Get down to it.
Mr. Nixon. Setting up this kind of test gives administrative au-
thority the power at their discretion to proscribe unions and indi-
viduals from being union officers. Let me read.
Mr. Arens. All right, sir.
Mr. Nixon (reading) :
Such i>erson advocates
Senator Welker. Wliere are you reading from?
Mr. Nixon. Page 4, section (a) , line 4 :
246 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Such person advocates or has aided or supported financially or otherwise,
the advancement of the economic, international, military, and governmental
doctrines, policies, or aims of the world Communist movement, while knowing
or having reason to know that such doctrines, policies, or aims are those of the
world Communist movement ;
(b) Such person has knowingly aided or supported, financially or otherwise,
any Communist-action organization. Communist-front organization. Communist
foreign government or any organization listed as subversive by the Attorney
General under the provisions of Executive Order 9835 subsequent to the time
such organization was so solicited ; or
(c) Such person has instigated or encouraged or may instigate or encoui'age
strikes, slowdowns, or other interruptions of work among employees, for the
purpose of aiding and supporting the world Communist movement or a Com-
munist foreign government.
Mr. Arens. You are objecting to that language, is that correct?
Mr. Nixon. Together with the A. F. of L., CIO, and several civil
liberties organizations in the country. My union says that this lan-
guage would permit control, censorship, and licensing of unions at
full discretion to a governmental body.
Mr. Arens. Do you suggest that a person who has done these things
here
Senator Welker. Counsel, would you just as soon withhold your
cross-examination? Let us get all of his objections, and then we will
be more orderly, because we will disrupt his line of thinking. Just
mark that page and then go back.
Mr. Nixon. Let's be perfectly clear that our basic position is not to
tell you how to set tests up to be administered in the direction of
unions; that we want no substitution, none whatsoever, for the free
choice of workers, of their unions and their union officers. We say
here is where your national security is founded, in the free choice of
w^orkers, and that anything that limits that hurts the national security.
So don't ask me to suggest language that would be proper because
I think there is no language.
Senator Welker. Then you go right ahead to your next objection
to the bill.
INIr. NixoN. Well, I am perfectly happy to answer counsel's question
about what it is we mean here.
Senator Welker. You are inviting. I am trying to protect you
against cross-examination while you are getting to the meat of this
bill, and you are just asking for cross-examination.
Mr. Nixon. I don't mind cross-examination.
Senator Welker. All right, that is fine. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted
this matter completed, so I wanted to favor him. He indicated he
wanted the legislative matters discussed.
]Mr. Nixon. But this has to do with legislation. Now we are talk-
ing about legislation.
Mr. Arens. Let us just test that, if we may, so that the record is
clear. You do not want legislation designed to throw Communists
out of labor organizations, you want the workers to do it?
Mr. NixoN. I want no legislation to limit the rights of workers to
choose their own union, and their own union officers. We want un-
limited democracy in our unions, and we say the substitution of the
Subversive Activities Control Board or any other Government agency
for the free choice of workers is to set the pattern for destruction of
the trade-union movement in America.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 247
Mr. Arens. I was under the impression you said the workers
would also be the ones to throw the Communists out.
Mr. Nixon. I did not say that.
Mr. Arens. How are we going to get the Communists out of the
organizations ? How are we going to get Matles and Emspak out of
these hundreds of unions?
Mr. Nixon. I am not going to let you load me.
Mr. Arens. You think it is a presumption to say Matles is a Com-
munist ?
Mr. NixoN. I have answered that at least twice. So let's not load
the question. I think Fitz did, too.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I had hoped that I would be able to handle some
of those questions.
Senator Welker. Once again, Mr. Fitzgerald, I honored you in
your request, and your legislative gentleman here desires cross-exam-
ination. In fact, he said he wanted to be cross-examined, so counsel
is at liberty to cross-examine him within due bounds. I think that
question was a bit unfair.
Mr. Fitzgerald. He assumes statements of fact.
Senator Welker. Counsel, I think that was a bit unfair. Yoa are
assuming that these gentlemen are Communists.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I think I am obliged as an individual
as well as counsel of this committee because the record of this com-
mittee and that of the Un-American Activities Committee indicates
they are Communists.
Senator Welker. Wliy do you not say that the records of this
committee show, instead of a question as broad as yours ?
Mr. Arens. As this record shows, Mr. Nixon, this record today,
Emspak, Matles, and scores of other Communist agents are in UE.
How do you propose to get them out of UE or any other organiza-
tion?
Mr. NixoN. The record does not show that. We have stated over
and over again that the record shows that they have signed five valid
affidavits saying that they are not. That is what the record is here.
Let's get that straight.
Mr. Arens. The record shows here that they have been identified
before congressional committees under oath as persons who are Com-
munists.
Senator Welker. I think the witness is confused. He thinks to-
day's hearing. You are referring to a prior time, are you not, counsel ?
Mr. Arens. Oh, yes.
Mr. Nixon. As far as I am concerned the record is as I have indi-
cated.
Mr. Arens. Ton tell us how we are going to get Communists — for-
getting Emspak and Matles — ^liow we are going to get Communists
out of the UE.
Senator Welker. If there are any there.
Mr. Arens. If there are any there.
Mr. Nixon. If any person in our organization is going to be elim-
inated from office or from membership, he will have to be eliminated
from his office by the fact that a majority of the workers decide that
they don't want him and they want somebody else. That is the only
way we propose.
248 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. What if a majority of the people of this Nation speak-
ing through their representatives say there is an overriding public
interest, we don't want Communists in labor organizations, particu-
larly in labor organizations working in defense establishments?
What would you think about that ?
Mr. Nixon. In the first place, the people of the country, there is no
indication that the people of the country want that. That is what
this committee here is considering, is that right ?
Senator Welker. That is correct.
Mr. Nixon. What we are saying to you is that it is against the
interests of this country and the people of this country to substitute
for the control of majority rule in unions that they choose and the
officers that they choose. We are making a further point, so let's be
clear. We address ourselves to the question of national security, and
we are saying that you have a background of no verified union-con-
nected sabotage or espionage.
You also have this background in periods of international conflict
such as the cold war and the Korean war, times in which if your pre-
sumptions were justified, would have elicited, brought forAvard, evi
dence of this sort. We are saying to you to take this drastic step of
eliminating the basic elementary freedom for the first time in the
history of our country in our Labor movement would damage the
national security of our country and damage the welfare of our
country, and we are saying on the question of national security that
it is oiir position that the majority of the workers will not betray
our country; that the majority of workers, the judgment of the
workers, can be counted upon to be in the interests of our country,
and tliere is nothing to substitute for it.
Mr. Arens. Do you think it is in the interests of the country or
the interests of the workers, say, to have Communists in defense
plants ?
Mr. Nixon. As a matter of fact, you have a screening process in the
defense plants, and we have never raised a big fuss about that.
Mr. Arens. You ought to be for it, patriots ought to be for it, that
they do not want Communists in defense plants.
Mr. Nixon. Just a moment. We have never raised a question about
legitimate security measures. That is not the question. The ques-
tion here is not the right of any individual alone in this situation.
You try to put this always on the basis of the individual. We put it
on the basis of the majority of the workers, their rights to freely
choose.
Statements were made this morning about 95 percent of workers
are loyal, to be trusted. Why don't you trust them ?
Mr. Arens. We certainly do trust them.
Senator Welker. Just a moment. Supposing that 5 percent of
those people were loyal, dedicated members of the Communist Party
who have given their oath and their pledge that at the call they would
destroy the plant in which they worked and in which they might be
a member of the controlling union? What are we going to do with
the 5 percent, Mr. Nixon.
Mr. Nixon. Well, if you find anyone in this country engaged in the
operation for sabotage or espionage, then we have laws to take care
of that, and we have from the very outset of our organization taken
a very strong and clear position, making a distinction between actions
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 249
and political opinions, and we have adopted the basic presumption
that a man is innocent until he is proven guilty.
We have proceeded on the basis of equal rights in our organiza-
tion.
Senator Welker, It would be a little late, would it not, to remedy
the matter if the plant were to be burned down or destroyed by some
5 percent or 1 percent of the people that you do not desire in your
union ?
Mr. Nixon. Of course, it would be late, but the facts are not to sub-
stantiate the fears which you mention because, as I say, we have
been through a period, the Korean war and 5 years or more of cold
war. We don't have a single, solitary instance. What are we going to
do, jump in to destroy the basic freedom of the American trade union
movement ? This is what we are fighting to preserve.
We are going into every union and set up five men down in the
RFC rooms, and they will say which unions can exist and who can be
union officers. We say that if you do that in the name of a ground-
less concern demonstrated by experience on the question of national
security, you will be destroying the freedom of the trade union move-
ment which is individually necessary to the welfare of our country.
We are not interested in limiting the capacity of our Government
to protect itself against actions against our national security. If
you need those laws, pass them, but this is an entirely different piece
of matter.
Mr. Arens. Tell us again how are you going to get the Communists
out of the UE. I understand you are agreeaole to getting saboteurs
and spies out of the UE ?
Mr. Nixon. Let us just be careful. I am agreeing to getting the
spies and saboteurs out of the United States Senate, out of Congress,
out of churches, out of unions, out of corporations, anywhere in this
country.
Mr. Arexs. That is fine, I commend you.
Mr. NixoN. Anywhere.
Mr. Arens. Having gotten rid of all the spies and saboteurs in the
country, how are we going to get rid of spies and saboteurs in the UE.
Mr. Nixon. If there are Communists.
Mr. Arens. We want to enlist your support in helping this com-
mittee drive the Communists out of your organization or any other
labor organization.
]Mr. Nixon. If there are Communists in the UE and they are to be
gotten out of the union
Mr. Arexs. We are going to say we are going to get them out.
Mr. Nixon. If they are going to be gotten out, they are going to
be gotten out if we have anything to do with it on the basis of some-
body running against them and proving to the. majority of the
workers that they are a better trade union man and better to liave in
the office than the other.
Mr. Arens. How many have you sponsored in opposition to
Emspak and Matles, who have been identified before committees to
be Communists ? Wliat are you going to do to get rid of Matles and
Emspak ?
Mr. Nixon. I am the Washington representative of this interna-
tional union, and I have worked under the direction of Fitzgerald,
Matles and Emspak, the proudest years of my life, because I know
250 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
they liave been making a contribution to this country's welfare and
to the welfare of the workers of this country, and 1 have been proud
to work with them in that.
Mr. Arens. You would not want to work with them if they were-
Communist agents ?
Mr. Nixon. I wouldn't want to work with anybody who was an
agent. These men are agents of this union.
Mr. Arens. Are they Communists ?
Mr. Nixon, Do you want to go over that again ?
Mr. Arens. Yes. I think it is very pertinent to your answer.
Mr. Nixon. It is not I who is burdening this with repetition.
Mr. Arens. You avoid the word "Communist" or "Communist
agents."
Senator Welker. I think the record should show that these men
have taken a non-Communist oath, not once but five times, and on that
basis it is his conclusion they are not Communists, is that a fair
assumption ?
Mr. Nixon. Absolutely. I have no knowledge that they are Com-
munists, but I do know their record of consistent service to this
country and to the workers, and I am proud to associate with them and
I judge men by what they do.
Mr. Arens. Do you not think that Communists have a loyalty that
is paramount to any other organization, namely the loyalty they have
to the Communist Party ?
Mr. Nixon. I have told you I can't — —
Mr. Arens. You do not know about that ?
Mr. Nixon. I can't discuss before this hearing that question.
Mr. Arens. Or Communists. Is that not a fact, trying to get
Communists out of labor organizations, particularly those organiza-
tions which serve defense establishments of this Government? Is it
]iot a fact that Communists have a loyalty to a Communist Party and
]iot to any labor organization or any other group with which they
might be affiliated ?
Senator Welker. If he knows, and I think he said he did not.
Mr. Nixon. I am not in any position to give you testimony on
behalf of the Communist Party.
Mr. Arens. How are we going to get Communists out of the UE ?
Mr. Nixon. You want me to tell you again ?
Mr. Arens. Right.
Mr. Nixon. I will be glad to.
Mr. Arens. You say we cannot do it by legislation or should not
do it because it would break up your union ?
Mr. Nixon. I will tell you. I am repeating only because you
repeated your question. Communists or any other persons in our
union will be eliminated from any office if we have anything to do
with it only on the basis of the democratic choice of the members of our
organization.
Mr. Arens. Why have they not been eliminated then as of now ?
Mr. Nixon. Because in very severely contested elections, in which
the balance of propaganda and pressure has not been on the side of
the UE, workers have looked at our record, evaluated our position, the
work we have done, the reputations and the standing of the men who
lead this union and have gone into secret polling places and have said,
"We reject the charges and we choose the leadership of tlie UE," and
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 251
-we say that for you to do something to take away from the workers
that right is to start the most damaging attack on the trade-union
movement that can be taken.
Mr. Arens. Tell us why have they not gotten the Communists out
of the UE.
Mr. Nixon. I will tell you. Because one, they have not believed
the things that have been said.
Mr. Arens. They have not believed there are Communists ; is that
right?
Mr. Nixon. "VVe have thousands and thousands of elections in our
organization, and I cannot make a blanket generalization about it
except to say this, that in every instance they have made an evaluation
of the merits
Mr. Arens. But they have not gotten them out yet, have they ?
Mr. NixoN. They have said, "We choose these people," whoever
they may be, "to be our leaders," and the thing we are saying to you
is that you can't take away from workers the right to do that without
destroying the freedom of the trade-union movement.
Mr. Arens. That is just the point, you have not answered why you
have not gotten the Communists out. You keep telling that every
time you have an election they keep putting them back in. Tell us
why these Communists are not eliminated from the UE.
Mr. Nixon. Let's be careful not to put words in my mouth. I said
if there are Communists in the UE anywhere at any level, they are
there
Mr. Arens. Are you for getting them out? Are you for ejecting
them?
Mr. Nixon. Categorically?
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Mr. NixoN. No.
Mr. Arens. You are not for ejecting Communists from the UE?
Mr. Nixon. I judge every man on the basis of service to this union.
Mr. Arens. But you are not for ejecting Communists from the UE ?
Mr. Nixon. I personally ?
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Mr. Nixon. I don't have anything to do with it.
Mr. Arens. You are the witness.
Mr. Nixon. I am for preserving the rights of workers to make
whatever choice they want.
Mr. Arens. Would you throw out a man as a Communist ?
Mr. Nixon. Just because he was a Communist?
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Mr. Nixon. Not if he had a record of showing that he was a better
trade-union man than the man running against him. I would judge
him on what is the contribution that this man will make to the welfare
of the workers.
Mr. Arens. Let me ask you this : How is the average worker down
at the lathe going to know whether Mr. X is or is not a Communist ?
You say this process of elections is going to throw him out, assuming
the man at the lathe wants to vote against every man who is a Com-
munist. How is he going to know who is a Communist ? Tell us that.
Mr. Nixon. He is going to have some trouble because the label of
Communist, of treason, is being thrown around pretty broadly thes&
252 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
days, and I suppose the man you mentioned in the hypothetical situ-
ation
Mr. Arens, He would be confused ?
Mr. Nixon. He would be confused.
Mr. Akens. So would it not be better to have an impartial agency
of Government with access to security files make a determination as
to who is and who is not a Communist ?
Mr. Nixon. I think you may have gathered the hint from my pre-
vious remarks that nothing is better than letting the workers choose
whom they want.
Mr. Arens. But you would choose not to throw Communists out;
you just told us that?
Mr. Nixon. I said I would choose to let the workers choose whoever
they wish, and I would judge whoever runs for office on the basis of
the contribution to the union.
Mr. Arens. Notwithstanding the fact that he was a Communist?
Mr. Nixon. I said I would not categorically vote against a man
who was making a contribution to the movement. The issue before
tliis committee is that you want to set up a Government agency to
substitute for the free choice of workers. That is the issue before
this committee.
Mr. Arens. Do you not think there is an overriding public interest
whereby the public says, "We just do not want Communists in labor
organizations, particularly organizations which are engaged in de-
fense establishments" ?
Mr. NixoN. I think there is an overriding public interest in main-
taining the unqualified freedom of the trade-union movement of our
country, and that one of the biggest issues in this country today is
whether that freedom is going to be taken away from us.
Mr. Arens. Let us belabor that point a moment. You think the
paramount thing here is to have freedom of selection. Before there
can be freedom of selection by a worker in an election, would you not
say that it is essential that that worker have all the facts?
Mr. NixoN. I would like to have a situation in which the workers
did have all the facts, and I think if they had all the facts about a
lot of things there would be a lot of changes made, and I am not
thinking about what you are thinking about, either.
Mr. Arens. Would you think it would be appropriate if the workers
were informed as to who are the Communists in the labor organiza-
tions?
Senator Welker. Now we will suspend at this point because the
chairman has to go to vote, and I will hurry back as soon as I can.
(A short recess was taken.)
Senator Welker. The meeting will come to order.
Mr. Nixon ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, in your absence while you went up
for rollcall, unless you or counsel want to ask Mr. Nixon any more
questions, and with the knowledge that the full statement that we
have presented here has become a part of the record, I would just as
soon that he conclude his part of it, and I will try to wind up my
part as quickly as possible.
Senator Welker. Of course, I assume the counsel will have ques-
tions ; I do not know. I am just a member of the committee.
Mr. Fitzgerald. He can direct questions to either one of us.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 253
Senator Welker. Yes, Mr. Nixon, have you concluded?
Mr. Nixon. With the understanding that the whole statement is in
the record, the substance of my statement is completed.
Senator Welker. I understand that the statement is a part of the
record ; there is no question about that.
Counsel, do you have any questions?
Mr. Arens. No further questions of Mr. Nixon.
Senator Welker. All right, Mr. Fitzgerald, you may proceed.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, we have been mentioned before
your committee on several occasions — that is, our organization has.
I think it might be helpful to you if you got an idea just exactly what
our organization is and how it functions. It will only take me a few
minutes to give it to you. I think that in it, why, you will get an idea
why we feel as we do on some of these things that have been raised
during the course of our appearance here.
First, of course, we are governed by a constitution that was adopted
by the membership of our organization all down through the years.
That constitution, we think, has served us very well, and it is pat-
terned in most respects after the Constitution of the United States.
It sets out a task for us, and that is to organize into our union all of
the workers in the electrical manufacturing industry, regardless of
race, creed, color, sex, political belief, or anything else.
We are proud of the job that we have accomplished ; we are proud
of the record of that union. W^e have fought very hard to preserve
that constitution.
I pointed out to you this morning that the union, well, we have over
300,000 members. We represent workers in about a thousand shops
from one end of the country to the other.
Mr. Arens. Could you tell us just in passing what defense estab-
lishments you have contracts in ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. We have contracts with General Electric Co.,
Westinghouse Co., Sylvania, International Harvester, any number of
our contracts cover shops where there is defense work being carried on.
Mr. Arens. Do you have contracts where any secret defense work
is being carried on ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Oh, I think yes, there must be secret defense work
in GE, Westinghouse, and places of that kind.
Mr. Arens. How about the Atomic Energy Commission ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we don't have contracts with them, any of the
shops in our jurisdiction.
Mr. Arens. You used to have, did you not?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No. When the atomic energy program first came
into being I think Mr. Nixon and I made a trip to Judge Patterson,
who was Secretary of War at the time, and we asked him how those
setups were going to operate and would there be any real opportunity
for collective bargaining for the workers in those shops, and he gave
it as his opinion because of the highly secret nature of the work that
it would be very difficult to engage in any effective collective bargain-
ing, so we made no attempt whatsoever to organize any of the atomic
energy plants. We stayed out of that field completely.
Mr. Arens. Did the Atomic Energy Commission to your knowledge
preclude contracts with UE ?
43903 — 54 17
254 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Fitzgerald. The Atomic Eiiergj' Commission at one time issued
a ruling to the effect that any union that had not signed the non-Com-
munist affidavits could not represent the workers in an atomic energy
plant. I think at that time many of the CIO unions, including the
CIO itself, the steel workers and others, had not as yet signed the
non-Communist affidavits.
We contested at the time, in fact the CIO joined in with us and
filed a brief supporting our contention. I don't remember exactly
what the ruling was on it, something to the effect that well, you
haven't been injured yet. This is an agency, you can go back to it
and discuss it.
Subsequent to signing the non-Communist affidavits a few years
afterward, why, we never bothered to try to engage in the organiza-
tion of those plants because we just didn't feel as though we could
be of any real service to the workers inside of those shops.
Mr. Arens. Could you give us, if you would not mind, just on this
same theme, Mr. Fitzgerald, an indication of the quantity of defense
materiel which is produced in plants in which UE holds a contract'?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Difficult.
Mr. Nixon. It would be very difficult.
Mr. Fitzgerald. We have no way of knowing it. We will hear
through the newspapers that the General Electric Co. got a $5 million
order from the Government. Now we don't know whether any of
that is secret work ; we have no way of knowing it. It may be, well,
they could be making light bulbs for the House restaurant for all we
know.
Mr. Arens. Do you have any contracts with any establishments
which are Government-owned as distinct from establishments that
have Government contracts ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we have no contracts in plants that are Gov-
ernment-owned unless the Government might own a particular plant
and some company was running it for them. I think the General
Electric Co. had a few plants that the Government owned but that
the company was operating for them. I think subsequent to that
they were able to purchase the plants and the equipment for a song.
Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, you go ahead, and then we will
reserve the right to cross-examine later.
Mr. Fitzgerald. As I was saying, this provision in our constitu-
tion served us well, and we fought very hard to preserve it. I am
not going to belabor the point ; we have a great deal of confidence in
our union and the membership of our organization because of the
way it is run.
I would like to point out to you that the backbone of our union
is the steward system in the various plants throughout the country.
Senator Welker. Is that not about the backbone of every union,
though ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Not necessarily so. Some unions do not have
any, some unions have limitations on them, maybe 1 to 1,000 people
or 1 to 500 people, and some run it almost completely from outside
the plant.
Senator Welker. Very well, pardon the interruption.
Mr. Fitzgeraij). Generally speaking, our stewards, each steward
represents about 50 people within a particular area of a shop. In
other words, you will be on the floor of a building and in the machine
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 255
shop end of it there will be 50 people there, and they will elect one
person from among themselves to act as their union representative.
These people work on the job. In most instances they are the better
knoAvn people, the most capable people.
I am going into this because the accusation has been made on many
an occasion that the stewards were the spy system that feed the in-
formation out from inside the plant to the national headquarters of the
union, and then we send it right over to Russia.
Now that is a pure figment of someone's imagination. I point out
to you that these stewards spend at least one-third of their lives with
their 40 or 50 associates that work with them, and if we go on the
assumption that 95 percent of the working people of this country
are loyal to this country and to what this country stands for — and I
think that is a mistaken figure to use because my guess is it is more like
Ivory Soap, 99.44 percent pure as far as that is concerned.
These people know each other intimately. They, as I say, live to-
gether at least inside the shop one-third of their lives 8 hours a day. It
is because of that system and tlie way it is selected that we have
the utmost confidence that there is absolutely no danger to the United
States in a union with that kind of makeup.
The allegation has been made, I think, before this committee with-
in the last week or so by a rej^resentative of the Stewart- Warner Corp.
that we appoint stewards; that we select Communists and send their
names in to be stewards inside the shop. Maybe in an isolated instance
somewhere, to fill a temporary vacancy until such a time as an election
is held, someone might appoint a steward to fill in for a few days or a
few weeks until you could make arrangements for the election.
The chief steward would do that. But eventually every person who
is a steward in our shops is elected by his associates right on the job
that he works on. We have gathered together a little information;
we haven't had an opportunity to look at the record here on the
testimony of the representative from SteAvart-Warner, but I do want
to cover a point that was raised here.
This one was raised about the appointment of stewards. Another
one was raised about that they got rid of us because it was a Com-
munist-dominated union. The fact is that in 1949 the National Labor
Relations Board found that the Stewart- Warner Corp. was engaging
in a collusive deal witli the IBEW, A. F. of L.. to sign a contract.
They took that to court, the Board having recommended that this
contract be thrown out and that they be compelled to deal with us
The court sustained the company on a technicality, and that was that
the complaint against them was not filed within 6 months of the oc-
casion of the signing of the collusive agreement.
I would like to have the record show that the Stewart- Warner
people broke with us because we had submitted some wage-and-con-
tract demands in 1949. They offered — this despite the fact that this
week they come here and say we aie part of a Communist conspiracy —
they offered to sign a contract with us for another year if we would
agree to drop our wage demands at the time.
Senator Welker. Do you have anything in writing on that, Mr.
Fitzgerald, or is that just in your conversations?
Mr. Fitzgerald. These are some notes that I have been able to pick
up in the limited time that I have, but we are getting them put on
256 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
paper, and I will be glad to send them to the committee if you wish
me to do it.
Senator Welker. Did Stewart- Warner write anything that would
be evidence of the fact that they were willing to continue ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think that these facts that I mention to you are
contained in the examiner's report for the National Labor Relations
Board. I think he states them as facts, but we will be glad to get that
information to you.
Senator Welker. If you will submit it to the committee we would
iippreciate it.
;^Ir. Fitzgerald. The union, of course, has been — there was some
mention by the chairman this morning of a hearing that he conducted
in Pittsburgh and where some of the witnesses that appeared before
him invoked the privilege of the fifth amendment. We look upon the
fifth amendment when we use it, if we use it, as not in any sense a
confession of guilt; we interpret the fifth amendment as being a
shield for the protection of the innocent, and I want to bring up an
example.
Senator Welker. As well as the guilty, I take it?
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. I want to bring up an example of
why on some occasions people feel it necessary to do that. During
the course of this Pittsburgh hearing I think you liad a witness there
by the name of Cvetic.
Mr. Nixon. Matsie.
Mr. Arens. Maizie.
Mr. Fitzgerald. We being the kind of union that we are, that
wants to have as many of our people as possible know what is going
on, decided to let the stewards in the Erie plant of General Electric
Co. come down to that hearing to see for themselves at first hand
what was going on.
You will probably remember some 25 or 30 people walking into
the hearing room in a group, and this witness that was identifying all
kinds of people from our union as members of the Communist Party
and saying that he had seen them at meetings and other things of
that kind got up on his feet and pointed to this group of people com-
ing into the door, and he said "Here comes another group of them
now, a bunch of Communists from the Civil Kights Congress in New
York."
Now, my God, when fellows sit before a committee meeting and
hear such ridiculous accusations as that made, it is only natural for
you to become apprehensive, to have a little fear of what is going on.
It was a group of people from Erie from one of the shops suddenly
finding themselves accused of that.
That is why I usually bristle, Mr. Chairman, when the counsel here
will say that, well, you know that Matles or Emspak or someoue else
is a Communist, and then using as proof of it, and I don't blame him
for it, the fact that he was named before some committee by some
witness.
I tell you, frankly, I don't place the same degree of confidence in
the credibility of witnesses appearing before some of these commit-
tees as the counsel for the committee seems to attach to them. I know
this, that as a result of that hearing in Pittsburgh one of our local
union officers, a fellow named Nelson, president of the local union
that worked in that plant for over 15 years, one of the cleanest cut
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 257
young fellows I have ever seen in my life and a person who I have
the utmost confidence in his loyalty to his country ; and his whole rec-
ord would indicate that he is a fine, upstanding citizen — he, in the
face of this fear, invoked the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
This fellow has been signing, as I say, affidavits every year since 1949
saying that he was not a Communist.
Mr. Arens. What was the name, do you recall ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Nelson. A couple of months after he appeared
before your committee — and I am not making any accusations that
this was the wish of the committee ; I don't think it was — the General
Electric Co. fired, or suspended him for 90 days, and if at the end of
90 clays he hasn't cleared himself with someone of these committees,
why, "then he is going to be discharged from his job.
This, to me, this coming in particular from a company that sends
around to its management people a bulletin of this nature, and I
just want to read one paragraph to you. Management Bulletin No.
2. It was issued on February 16, 1954. It says, referring to the UE
and lUE who are in a battle in the electrical organizational field
Senator Welicer. Trying to get jurisdiction?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. It says :
Both unions continue to make strong appeals for unity of all GE workers.
Disunity in the General Electric Corp., said a recent lUE leaflet, helps only
the company. As workers we don't want to help the company.
Now listen to this statement from the General Electric Co. :
Well, as management the company most certainly wants to help the workers
and believes that unity of GE workers would be a good thing for all, a unity
that could best be achieved if there were no unions at all standing between the
employees and their employer.
I repeat —
a unity that could best be achieved if there were no unions at all standing be-
tween the employees and their employer.
Now, this company has been one of the strongest advocates of the
type of legislation that is being studied now by this committee. Prac-
tically every publication they put out they endorse it; they screech
about tlie security of their plants — all of that; and they recognize
in this legislation — in our opinion they recognize in these pieces of
legislation that are pending here the opening wedge toward achiev-
ing the objective that they set forth in this management bulletin, and
that is to get rid of all unions that they have to deal with at the present
time.
Well, I don't want to belabor the point on that. I think that is a
sufficient reason for the endorsement of this type of legislation in their
own statements.
Mr. Arens. Before he leaves Nelson, do you want to ask him about
that, Senator?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Go ahead.
Senator Welker. Well, I first want to make this observation, Mr.
Fitzgerald. Perhaps you and your union and your location are a bit
different than the people of my State. I believe if someone would
call me a Communist under oath or otherwise before a congressional
committee or in a court of law or any place else, I would at first do
my best to knock him down, and, secondly, I would sue him.
258 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
I cannot go with you on the proposition that all the time these
people who claim the amendment, or many times, they are innocent.
I have practiced law for many years, and I have defended many men
accused of crime. I have never yet had the opportunity of invoking
the fifth amendment for an innocent person.
However, now with respect to the testimony of Mr. Nelson, I am
looking now at the testimony. It indicates that he was very willing
to testify that he had never engaged in sabotage and spying, but that
when he was asked whether or not he was a member of the Communist-
Party he invoked the privilege of the fifth amendment.
I think the record speaks for itself that Mr. Xelson was identified
by two live witnesses. By "live" Ave mean people who came in and
testified under oath that he was a member of the Communist Party.
Now certainly there is redress for an accusation such as that. I have
heard it said that they testify under the cloak of immunity of a con-
gressional committee, but I have had many, many people testify,
former members of the Communist Party, before cojnmittees that!
liave headed, acted on. They are very willing to make that accusation
out in public, on the radio, write books on it, make speeches on it, and
I have yet to have knowledge of one being successfully prosecuted or
sued as a result of those accusations.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, of course. Senator, in the present atmos-
phere in the country today it is extremely difficult, it is extremely diffi-
cult for a person to adequately defend himself on those kind of
charges today.
Senator Welker. That I do not agree with you, sir. I have
defended quite a few people with a charge of murder, and I have gone
into localities where the situation was extremely difficult on behalf of
my client, and the wheels of justice turn quite favorably, and I say
this, that I believe the American people would resent, as I woulcl
resent, very much a man who would commit perjury against a fellow
man.
As I told you this morning, if you ever can furnish me information
that any man who has come before a committee that I am a member
of and testified falsely, I will assist you in every detail in seeing to it
that he is prosecuted and sent to prison, because I cannot imagine a
more heinous offense than that of committing perjury against a fellow
man and ruining his life and the life and reputation of his family.
Mr. Fitzgerald. When I made that statement. Senator, I didn't
expect that you were going to agree with me; I gave it as a matter of
my opinion.
Senator Welker. Furthermore, let me make this observation, and
I do it in all sincerity with great respect to you. I hated to hear you
take advantage of the fifth amendment today because in my opinion
the feeling that I gi\asp from traveling about the country, the Ameri-
can people are getting to feel that those who take the fifth amendment
are in fact guilty.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, of course
Senator Welker. If they are not guilty, heaven knows they should
never take it.
^ Mr. Fitzgerald. That is an awful wav of whittling away at the
Constitution. I hated to use the fifth amendment this morning. Sen-
ator, and I can assure you when I used it I didn't have the slightest
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 259
feeling of guilt. I used that provision of the Constitution of the
United States in the sense that an innocent person uses it, and I can
assure j'ou of that one.
Now I haven't noticed anywhere yet where the Chief Justice of the
United States has instituted any suits about the slanders that were
thrown and the libels that were thrown against him in the last few
weeks. I have read in the papers about 20 years of treason in this
country that takes you all back through the New Deal, and if you were
any part of the New Deal you know the implications there, that you
are a treasonable personage.
Mr. Arens. Could you talk about people who actually are Com-
munists, not people who may be accused of but are now Communists?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Go ahead.
Mr. Arens. What do you think about the Smith Act, which makes
it a crime to conspire to overthrow the Government by force and
violence? Do you favor that one?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I^et me tell you on that one, Mr. Counsel, that when
we were in the CIO the CIO went on record along with many other
groups of people throughout the country, in fact I think it was even
vetoed by the President of the United States, went on record in op-
position to the Smith Act, and I likewise was opposed to it because
I do not believe in punishing people for their beliefs and ideas.
Mr. Arens. How about overt acts to conspire to overthrow the Gov-
ernment of the United States by force and violence?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Overt acts, commissions of crimes of any kind
against the United States, myself and the union that I represent will
do every possible thing we can to expose those people committing
them and do what we can to see that they are brought to justice.
Mr. Arens. Do you not think that a Communist is dedicated to
the destruction of the United States by force and violence?
Mr. Fitzgerald, I actually don't know what they are dedicated to.
I tliink we are in a sad damn state of affairs in this coimtry if we are
going to let what everyone says is a handful of people as far as the
total population of America, scare us into passing the kind of legis-
lation that will put everyone in a straitjacket. I am opposed to that
kind of stuff.
Mr. Arens. What if we just put the Communists in a straitjacket,
would you be opposed to that then ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am afraid, counsel, you wouldnt be satisfied with
that, putting them in a straitjacket; you would want them hanged.
Mr. Arens. I would want them shot.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I wouldn't agree.
Mr. Arens. You would be in favor of legislation outlawing these
conspirators ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am in favor of legislation, and in fact, I think
you already have it on the books, counsel, legislation outlawing con-
spiracies.
Mr. Arens. How about just the Communists? Wliy do you not
stay with the Communists?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Wliy don't you stay with the Communists? I am
not getting away from them ; you are getting away from them.
Mr. Arens. Would you be in favor of legislation outlawing the
Communist Party in the United States ?
260 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir ; I would not be in favor of legislation out-
lawing any political ide^s.
Mr. Arens. Do you think the Communist Party is a political party?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know whether it is or not.
Mr. Arens. You know it is not ; you know it is a conspiracy ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Counsel, are you asking the questions and answer-
ing them, too ? Wliat are you telling me, what I know, and — ■ — •
Mr. Arens. Assuming the Communist Party is a conspiracy, would
you be in favor of outlawing the Communist Party ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. If the Communist Party is a conspiracy dedicated
to the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and
violence, I believe in punishing them.
Mr. Arens. Would you be in favor of outlawing the party?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know about outlawing parties.
Senator Welker. Now, INIr. Fitzgerald, you think on that one. I
am quite certain that you should think on that one.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me answer you this way : If the Communist
Party was a party dedicated to the overthrow of the Government of
the United States by force and violence or if the Democratic Party
was or the Socialist Party was or the Republican Party was, I might
be in favor of legislation to outlaw them.
Senator Welker. You have not answered the question. You said
you might be.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I would be. I am not trying to hedge on that.
I am against anyone overthrowing the Government of the United
States by force and violence, and my union is, too.
Mr. Arens. Now would you be in favor of outlawing any organi-
zation— let's forget the label now — tliat is dedicated to the overthrow
of the Government by force and violence ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think they are outlawed, aren't they?
Mr. Arfns. No. The Communist Party is not outlawed.
Mr. Fitzgerald. You think it is not a crime to try to overthrow
the Government of the United States by force and violence?
Mr. Arens. Yes, it is, but would you be in favor of outlawing any
organization dedicated to the overthrow of the Government by force
and violence ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I certainly would be.
Mr. Arens. Now would you be in favor of outlawing or at least
ejecting from labor organizations any person who is a member, know-
ing, conscious, active, bona fide member of an organization dedicated
to the overthrow of the Government by force and violence ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. In 1941 our union passed a resolution at our con-
vention setting up some qualifications for membership in this or-
ganization, and we stated very frankly that any person who commits
any acts against the union or against the United States of America
should be expelled from membership in this union.
Mr. Arens. Well, now, would you tell us whether or not you would
be in favor of precluding from membership in a labor organization of
any person who is a member of an organization dedicated to the
overthrow of the Government by force and violence ? That is a very
simple question.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think I would even have to bother with it;
I think our members would preclude them from becoming members,
Mr. Arens. Do you know of any people in your organization who
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 261
are members of an organization dedicated to the overthrow of the
Government by force and violence ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no personal knowledge of any, sir.
Mr. Arens. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the
Communist Party ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think, Senator, that question was asked — pardon
me, I didn't want counsel, rather, not Senator — I think that question
was asked of me this morning, and I think I answered.
Senator Welker. No. I do not believe so.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator Eastland asked me that question.
Mr. Arens. No, he asked you about other people in the organization.
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, he said, "I am asking you the question."
Senator Welker. I did not have that recollection of it.
Mr. Arens. I did not either.
Senator Welker. I thought he was going to other people in the
organization.
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, he asked me that question.
Mr. Arens. You would not mind answering it again? It would
only take a couple of seconds. Yon would accommodate the com-
mittee by answering the question as to whether or not
Mr. Fitzgerald. I should like to refer you back to the answer I gave
this morning.
Mr. Arens. But the answer is not to the question.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The answer is to the question in my opinion.
Senator Welker. In all fairness to you, Mr. Fitzgerald, I am con-
fused ; one or the other of us is confused, and counsel is confused.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me give you my recollection of the question
that was asked this morning. Senator Eastland was questioning
Nixon about Matles and Emspak, asking if they were Communists
before they signed the affidavits. I attempted to get the hearing back
on to the purpose that we were supposed to be here for today. I don't
think that this committee is operating in the capacity today as a task
force investigating subversive activities or anything of that kind.
I think what you are doing is functioning, at least that is what was
stated, on the legislative aspects of the bills that are pending before
it for study. I tried to get it back on that track again.
Senator Welker. I remember that part ; yes.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Then I got myself involved with Senator Eastland,
so he switched away from Mr. Nixon, and he said "I am asking you
the question now, were you ?"
Senator Welker. I certainly do not recall that, in a direct question
to you, Mr. Fitzgerald. I am trying to pay attention to it.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I can assure you I answered it under the assump-
tion that it was a direct question to me.
Senator Welker. Then will you go ahead and answer it again ?
Mr. Arens. To clear the record, are you now or have you ever been
a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Fitzgerald, I have been signing affidavits since 1949, and I
would like to know first
Senator Welker. I can get another question that will clear that.
Were those affidavits true or were you lying ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. That question will clear it. Those affidavits were
absolutely true. I was not lying and I will never lie before a commit-
tee under oath. Now, you said that would clear the question.
262 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. It clears that part of it.
Mr. Fitzgerald. You said it would clear it.
Mr. Arens. It clears that part of it,
Mr. Fitzgerald. You said it would clear it.
Mr. Arens. Were you ever a member of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I would say that if you have any evidence to the
effect that I was, that you ought to prove it, that you ought to put it
on the table.
Mr. Arens. Are you now a member of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Am I now a member of the Communist Party?
My gfoodness, I think this is badgering, Counsel. I tell you very
frankly, when it comes to
Senator Welker. I do not like the form of the questioning, either.
I think if you will answer the question, are you now or have you ever
been a member of the Communist Party, we will go on to something
else.
You have made it clear. If you desire to use the fifth amendment,
you have certainly indicated to the committee why you desire to use
the fifth amendment, and that is a question of fact that the committee
will weigh.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think the fifth amendment is for the protection of
innocent people. Senator
Senator Welker. As well as the guilty.
Mr. Fitzgerald. And my name does not happen to be Stevens and
I am not going to retreat on this.
Senator Welker. What do you mean by that? I did not ask you
anythino; about Stevens.
Mr. Fitzgerald. No; but I am just making an emphatic point here,
because I feel as though I came to testify before this committee on
legislative aspects pendins: before it. I have been to any number of
Senate and House committees studying legislation in the past 10 or 11
years. This is the first committee that I have ever appeared before
that was studying, getting opinions, mind you, on the legislation that
they had before them, where you were sworn in when you. gave testi-
mony. I never hnd that experience before. I didn't object to being
sworn. I don't object to being sworn when I give testimony.
Mr. Arens. Then answer the question. Are you now or have you
ever beon a member of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, with the feeling that the fifth amendment is
for the protection of innocent people, I am not going to answer that
question. I am goinir to invoke that privilege.
Senator Welker. You invoke the privilege.
Mr. Arens. Now will you tell us, then, how we are going to get the
Communists, if any, out of UE ?
Mr. Fttzger\ld. I think that the UE. based on its record, will rid
itself if it needs to be rid of anything, of any people who are working
against the best interests of the United States.
Mr. Arens. How about the Communists? Let us just assume that
the Communists are not workino- in the interests of the country. Let's
just assume that. Maybe we will differ as to whether thev are. How
are we .Q-oinc: to get the Communists out of the UE ? Just tell us.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The UE is not going to adopt the tactics of the
General Electric Co., and fire people from its membership on what we
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 263
consider unsubstantiated evidence that is presented before some of
these committees and people invoking their pnvileges under the Con-
stitution.
Mr. Arens. What evidence will you
Senator Welker. Just a moment, Counsel.
You have told us about this upstanding young man by the name of
Nelson that you considered a loyal xVmerican. You felt that he was
unjustly accused and therefore had to take the fifth amendment. As
a result thereof, he was suspended for 90 days and unless he purged
himself of that — in law we call it contempt — he would be fired.
What ai'e we going to do ? What is the Congress of the United States
going to do when they have two people raise their right hand to God
and testify that the man is a Communist? It is a problem that I
would like to be enlightened on, Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. FnzcERAU). Well, again I would have to say to you this, that
in the absence of a fellow like Nelson, committing any overt acts of
any kind whatsoever, against the company, against the Government,
or against his union, I think that we got to give a fellow like that the
benefit of the doubt. I don't think that we should deprive him of his
means of making a living. I don't think he should be fired for it.
Mr. Arens. Do you think he sliould work in the defense plants?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Or 1 don't believe he should eventually be taken
out and shot, either.
Mr. Arens. Do you think he should work in defense plants?
Senator Welker. Let me finish, Counsel, if you please.
I think, and of course 1 know not so much about your union, but
I think you would have been doing your duty if you had demanded
or will demand that these witnesses who testified under oath, you say
under the cloak of immunity of these roving congressional committees,
to make that statement in public, where he doesn't have the immunity,
and if the gentleman is not a member of the Connnunist Party, those
who testified against liim certainly should be prosecuted criminally
and civilly as well. Don't you think that would be the right approach,
Mr. Fitzgerald ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, it is my recollection, I do not remember the
exact date — it is a couple of years ago — when one of the witnesses
you had out there appeared on a radio program after he had named
some people before a committee, and he said then that he could not
nanie them over the radio because he would be liable, he would be
subject to a suit for libel, and he didn't name them.
Senator Welker. Who was that ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think it was Cvetic.
Senator Welker. Cvetic?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. That is a recollection I have.
Mr. Arens. Tell us what kind of evidence you would accept, and
how we are going to get the Communists out of the UE? That is
what I want to know. You have told us that our evidence and the
evidence before these committees isn't sufficient to throw them out, and
our bill here which would preclude them from being in unions isn't
any good. You tell us how we are going to get the job done.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't want to appear to be flippant, but you have
asked that question so many times
Mr. Arens. You haven't answered it yet.
264 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Fitzgerald. And we have kept repeating, you know, an answer
to it. How are you going to get them out of the Senate of the United
States? Have you passed any legislation yet saying that the Com-
munist could not be elected Senator of the United States?
Mr. Arens. As far as I know, there isn't any legislation of that
kind.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Is there any under study, even ?
Mr. Arens. Not that I know of.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Then why single out trade-unions for this special
treatment ?
Mr. Arens. You tell us how we are going to get them out of the UE.
Would you tell us that ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I deny that it is a problem inside of the UE, and
I am not certain that it is a problem inside of the United States Senate.
But if you show us the way, if you show us the way, if you pass legis-
lation saying that it is a crime to be a member of the Communist Party,
if you pass legislation saying they cannot run for office in the United
States, they cannot run for Congress. I can assure you, as a union
we are law-abiding people. We have never violated the law and
we do not intend to.
Mr. Arens. You would help us, then, drive them out if we passed
this legislation? You would help drive them out?
Mr. Fitzgerald. If it became proven that the Communist Party
or anyone else was a party devoted to the overthrow of the Govern-
ment of the United States, if it became illegal to be a Communist in
this country, if it became illegal for them to hold public office, I as-
sure you we would abide by the laws.
Mr. Arens. Have j^ou studied these documents issued by the In-
ternal Security Subcommittee quoting the statements of the Com-
munists themselves which established in a reasonable mind that the
Communist Party is dedicated to the overthrow of the Government of
the United States by force and violence ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I haven't studied the documents.
Mr. Arens. Assuming that the Communist Party is dedicated to
the overthrow of the Government by force and violence, would you
go along with this in the notion that people who are members of this
conspiracy should not be in labor organizations, especially in de-
fense plants ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think I should. First, let me say this:
There is the utmost security in defense plants in this country. We
repeated to you on a couple of occasions this morning, that there is
a regular screening system. Every one that works on secret work is
screened and cleared for that work.
Mr. Arens. Should Communists be screened out, do you think?
If a man is just a Communist, we know he is a Communist, we have
his Communist card right here, we will say, in our hand. Should
we screen him out of a defense plant ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think in the defense plants throughout the
country there have been many people screened out, including some
who were alleged to be Communists. We have raised no objections
to it, and we think that when it comes to something involving the
vital security of the United States that the United States has a right
to protect itself.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 265
Mr. Arens. Let's be specific here. Should we screen out of de-
fense plants people who are Communists ? If we don't know a thing
about them except they are Communists, should we let them be in our
defense plants ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me say this to you, in answer
Mr. Arens. Cannot you just say yes or no ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. If you want to answer the questions that you ask,
again, go ahead. But will you permit me to answer in my own
way 'I If you are not satisfied, then come back and hit me again.
Mr. Arens. All right, we will try it again.
Mr. Fitzgerald. If as many people feel that a member of the Com-
munist Party would endanger, if he worked on vital defense secrets,
the security of the United States, I will say that the United States
should be given the benefit of the doubt and he should be screened off
that job.
Mr, Arens. Do you think that the Communists are that kind of a.
risk?
Mr. Fitzgerald. AVell, I will tell you very frankly, and I can quote
from testimony of the vice president of General Electric Co., and I
think if you had any real understanding of the workings inside of
a defense plant you would not be so frightened about this problem.
They work, he said, on many, many component parts, no one of which
gives away the secret of the final product. And he stated that it
would be impossible, impossible for any one of them to have knowl-
edge enough of the complete job to even know what its destination
was eventually going to be.
Mr. Arens. Well, he might. Now let's just see if you will go along
with this on just one phase of the legislation. Would you be agreeable
to legislation which would preclude from defense plants people who
are Communists?
Mr. Fitzgerald, I would not be in favor of precluding people from
making a living who happen to hold unpopular views at any given
time.
Mr. Arens. Well, tell us whether or not you would be in favor of
precluding Communists from defense plants, just Communists. The
legislation would say, in effect, no Communist shall work in a defense
plant. Would you be in favor of that or not?
Mr. Fitzgerald, Well, I would say that in our defense plants — at
present they are excluded from classified work. We have no objec-
tions to that.
Mr, Arens, Well, would you exclude
Mr. Fitzgerald. We do not think anyone should be excluded from
making an electric light bulb because of his political beliefs ; no.
Mr. Arens, You say because of his political beliefs. Do you think
that a Communist is one who just holds "political beliefs" or do you
think he is part of a conspiracy ?
Mr, Fitzgerald, I don't know, I don't know.
Mr. Arens. Well, if the Government on the basis
Mr. Fitzgerald. Some people think 20 years of the new deal waa
part of a treasonable conspiracy. I am not ready to believe that.
Mr. Arens. You don't believe that the Communist organization is a
conspiracy, is that correct?
Mr, Fitzgerald, I don't
Senator Welker, I do not think he said that.
266 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't believe
Senator Welker. I thought he said he did not know.
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. I don't know,
Mr. Arens. Well, assuming that you do not know, would you want
to take a chance ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I wish you wouldn't ask me to assume so many
things, because you might ask me if I assumed that you were a threat
to the freedoms of the American people, should you be excluded as
counsel for a committee. I don't want to answer questions that arci
assumptions, "iffy" questions.
Mr. Arens. You do not like assumptions, do you ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir ; I don't.
Mr. Arens. Would you favor legislation which would throw out of
UE, or any other labor organization, known Communists?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am afraid that if we accomplished that, then
the General Electric Co. and the rest of industry in this company
would not hire anything but Communists, because they would feel
they wouldn't have any union representation. With my experience in
my own organization, I see no threat inside of the organization to the
security of the United States.
Mr. Arens. Well, you do not even know whether the Communist
Party is a conspiracy, so you could not see a threat on something that,
you didn't know about.
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't know it, sir, and I am not going to
take your word for it, either.
Mr. Arens. I wonder if he could tell us
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think it is a sad reflection upon the people of the
United States if we cannot battle out in the arena of ideas the issue
of people holding unpopular beliefs.
Senator Welker. Well, there are a lot of fine, precious American
boys rotting in their graves today
Mr. Fitzgerald. I know. Mr. Nixon's brother was one of them.
Senator Welker. Yes? And wlio fouglit communism. I cannot
believe that Communists should be permitted to live and prosper when
so many boys were injured and died in combating that influence. But
I want to ask this question. Counsel, before we proceed further; I
think these gentlemen can help me.
You have related here, time and time again, the names of certain
witnesses, apparently officers of Mr. Fitzgerald's union. What are
their names?
Mr. Arens. Do you mean those people that have been identified?
Senator Welker. Yes.
Mr. Arens. These people have been identified before our subcom-
mittee who are now in UE as Communists by live witnesses. James
Matles, who is director of organization ; Julius Emspak, wlio is secre-
tary-treasurer. In our hearings in Cleveland a year or so ago, these
people were identified by live witnesses as Communists : Jerome Jo-
seph, Victor Adrian Pasche, Herbert S. Siens, Fred Gardner, Mrs.
Marie Reed Haug, Fred Haug, Herbert Irving Hirschlierg, Paul J.
Shepard, James Edward Marino.
In our hearings which we had in Pittsburgh
Senator Welker. For the purpose of my question, you had Emspak
and who else?
Mr. Arens. Matles.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 267
Senator Welker. I would like to know this very simple fact. Mr.
Nixon testified that these gentlemen had signed the non-Comnmnist
oath not once but different times, an oath in which, if they violated
that oath, they committed the crime of perjury. If they are Commu-
nists I want to know why they haven't been prosecuted.
Mr. Arens. The reason for it is very simple, and that is that in the
non-Communist affidavit, what they do is the day before they sign
it, they resign from the party. Then they sign it. The best illustra-
tion of that is Morris Travis, who was with the mine, mill, and smel-
ters' union. We have in our office right now a public statement he
made saying in effect that he is a Communist, that he was a Commu-
nist, that he continues to believe in the Communist principles and
doctrines, and he is going to fight for them, he is going to go right on
with it. He is formally resigning his membership in the Communist
Party so that he can sign the affidavit, and he does it. That is what
these fellows are doing.
Mr. Fitzgerald. There is no comparison to what you just stated as
the comparison of Travis and the situation of Matles and Emspak.
Matles and Emspak have never admitted membership in the Commu-
nist Party. They never took any formal action of resigning from
the Connnunist Party. They have signed these affidavits. We do not
agi*ee with you, incidentally, that you can resign today and sign the
affidavit tomorrow, and then become a member again the next day.
Mr. Arens. I don't either. I think that is the wrong interpreta-
tion, but that is what the Board has held.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not going to take a chance on 5 years of my
life on that kind of an interpretation of the law and feel secure.
Senator Welker. Will you let me interrupt. It is a very interest-
ing question. I would think that would be a question of fact for a
jury to decide, and I cannot imagine a jury acquitting any one on such
a crackpot idea as that. I believe the jury would look through that
and convict. That is something I want counsel to pay attention to.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, both of them have
appeared before grand juries that were investigating their affidavits.
The grand jury saw fit not to prosecute. Mr. Nixon
Senator Welker. Did they have the witnesses who testified against
them that counsel said we had ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know what witnesses they had before the
grand jury, other than I know that Matles and Emspak were before
a grand jury. Mr. Emspak this morning read from a photostatic
copy of the hearings in the Appropriations Committee of the Senate,
and pointed out where the Assistant Attorney General of the United
States said that they had processed the affidavits at least four times,
and that the FBI reports contained a statement that was unusual in
FBI reports, that there was no evidence of Communist Party mem-
bership.
Mr. Arens, By Matles and Emspak ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir. If you were paying attention this morn-
ing you would have heard. In fact, if you wish to, we have a photo-
static copy we can introduce for the record.
Senator Welker. I can recall some testimony or statement made by
even higher officials that a certain gentleman who had committed
perjury, that was merely a red herring. So I am paying no atten-
tion to that. But I want to say this to you, Mr. Fitzgerald, that I
268 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
tliink that you haven't kept faith with your 300,000 members, when
you permitted a willful lie, as you testified was a lie this morning, to
be perpetrated upon your members by saying they were kicked out
of a union because vou were Communist dominated. It would seem
to me that if you properly represented those 300,000 people, you
would have spent every dollar in your treasury to purge that name
or that accusation against you, and I believe your union would have
gone far ahead by virtue of that. That was the first time I had ever
heard that. As I told you, I walked over and spoke to you about it,
it was surprising and shocking to me, because actually the Senator
from Idaho reads the newspapers but he had never read a denial of
that fact. I am sorry to admit my ignorance on that, but many, many
people believe, as I believe, that you were definitely purged from an-
otlier major union because you were Communist dominated.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Mr. Senator, let me say this to you, that we
have never had the feeling that the newspapers were interested in be-
coming advocates of ours.
Senator Welker. Well, they must have been advocates of the other
side, then; is that correct'^
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is true.
Senator Welker. Why would that be ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I would say because the leading companies in our
industry were trying to destroy our union. In fact, the General Elec-
tric Co. made it possible for the CIO to have elections inside of our
UE when the contract still had another year to go. They said that
they bailed Carey out, that they took him off the hook, that he did
not have a single membership card, but that they petitioned for the
election. And they got more influence with the newspapers than we
have. I can assure you of that.
As for your other statements. Senator, and it was a pretty strong
one, about me letting my membership down, I betrayed them
Senator Welker. I do not mean you betrayed them. If I made
that statement
Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me say to you
Senator Welker. Let me say I think you should have gone after
that other union.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am going to say as the head of my union I am
going to use the money of that union and the energy of its people
toward securing better wages and better working conditions for
them. I am not going to use it to continue to stir up a sj^lit in the
labor movement in this country. I think that we should be making
every effort to get together rather than to be driven further apart,
you see. And I end up on the basis that I am awfully glad that you
haven't got a vote in our organization. My members apparently are
satisfied with the way I have represented them. They have elected
me every year in a convention since 194:1. And I am content to think
that they think that I am doing the right thing.
Senator Welker. I want to answer that, sir. I think you are argu-
ing against your case, because "this morning, as I understood it, you
testified with respect to certain unions attempting to raid your con-
tracts, and by virtue of such publicity, that they willfully, apparently,
got out, which was false, would that not be a great help, a great assist-
ance to them, in raiding you, in keeping you from organizing other
shops ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 269
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is true. But let me say this to you, Senator.
We think that the people, the membership of the CIO, are good,
honest trade unionists. We think that the assets of that organization
belong to them. We are not interested in trying to embroil them in
legal actions. Our quarrel is with the leadership of the CIO, with a
few of them in particular. We think that we are perfectly able to
protect ourselves and eventually vindicate ourselves from these
charges against us in the open arena where we operate among our-
selves without resorting to the courts.
Senator Welker. In other words, you feel that it was just a few
executives of the union you named that made these false charges
against you?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Not only do I feel it, but I know it, sir.
Mr. Arens. The record is clear, is it not, that the record of the CIO
convention reflects that —
the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America has fallen into
the control of a group devoted primarily to the principles of the Communist
Party, and opposed to the constitution and democratic objectives of the CIO,
and in particular to the following declaration in the preamble of the constitu-
tion of the CIO.
In the achievement of this task we turn to the people because we have faith
in them ; and we oppose all those who would violate tliis American emphasis of
respect for human dignity, all those who would use power to exploit the people in
the interest of alien loyalties.
It is true, is it not, that the CIO did find and did pass a resolution ex-
pelling UE in accordance with the terms which I have just read?
jMr. Fitzgerald. I would have to refresh my mind on that.
Senator Welker. What are you reading from, counsel ?
Mr. Arens. From a committee print of the Committee on Labor
and Public Welfare, wdiich sets forth on page 50 thereof exhibit E
which purports to be excerpts from proceedings of the 1949 conven-
tion of the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Mr. Fitzgerald. What date was that ?
Mr. Arens. 1949.
Mr. Fitzgerald. It doesn't give the month of the convention?
Mr. Arens. If it does, I don't readily see it.
Mr. Fitzgerald. It was after we had withdrawn from the CIO.
Senator Welker. You testified that you resigned — how many
months was it, again?
Mr, Fitzgerald. It was several months.
Senator Welker. Eight months?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, not that long.
Senator Welker. Four months ?
]\Ir. Fitzgerald. Approximately. I testified this morning that we
were in the CIO, that we had no conflict there. In fact, in 1947 I
think President Murray came to our convention. He extolled the
virtues of our organization, said it was a fine union, said that the
officers of the union had given him the utmost cooperation and had
supported CIO policies 100 percent. By 1948 we did not think Tru-
man was the best man for the people of the United States. And the
CIO happened to think that he was. And they said "You have to go
along with us."
Mr. Arens. Why would UE be concerned as a labor organization
in political controversies any waj'^ ?
43903^ — 54 18
270 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Fitzgerald. If we weren't concerned, I can assure you these
bills that are here before you would have much easier sledding. Of
course the legislation, it means the life of our organizations. We have
to be concerned with it.
Mr. Arens. You spoke about the money you did not want to spend
of the workers for other causes. Do you spend any money of the
workers in contributions to Communist fronts ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we do not, sir.
Mr. Arens. Do you spend any money of the workers in salaries for
Communists ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we do not, sir. We only pay people for the
work they do for our organization.
Mr. Arens. Well, are there any Communists on the payroll of UE ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no knowledge of any on the payroll.
Mr. Arens. There is no
Mr. Fitzgerald. No personal knowledge. I don't know. There
might be. I have no knowledge of it. No one has come to me and
said that there are Communists.
]\Ir. Arens. Well, do you know whether or not the editor of the
Union News, Willard Bliss, the Union News published by local 508
UE is a Communist ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no personal knowledge of it. He is not on
our payroll.
Mr. Arens. He is on the payroll of UE, is he not?
Mr. Fitzgerald. On the payroll of a local union in Erie, I believe,
but not our payroll.
Mr. Arens. If two witnesses before a congressional committee
swear before God that they know he is a Communist because they
served with him in the Communist Party, and if he then takes the
stand and throws the fifth amendment at us, would that satisfy you
that the man is a Communist ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No. I don't agree that because a person uses the
fifth amendment when he is asked if he is a Communist, that tha*"
makes him a Communist.
Mr. Arens. How about two witnesses testifying that he is, under
oath ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't attach the same credibility to those wit-
nesses that you do.
Mr. Arens. How many witnesses would it take before it would
satisfy your mind that the man is a Communist ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. I would rather take it if it was in
open court where a person would have a right to cross-examine, where
he would have a right to make them produce evidence.
Mr. Arens. But you say you wouldn't want to outlaw the party,
not to make it illegal to be a Communist. How would we get him
into the court?
Mr. Fitzgerald. If he committed any acts against the countr3^
You have had a lot of Communists in the courts lately.
Mr. Arens. How about other acts besides espionage and sabotage?
How about Communist propaganda ? Do you think that is in the in-
terests of the country ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think the American people are intelligent enough
to, when they read things, when they listen, to come up with right
decisions.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 271
Mr. Arens. Do you think they are intelligent enough to know
whether or not Willard Blias is a Comnmnist, who is the editor of the
Union News?
Mr. FiTZGEitALD. I think they would be.
Mr. Arens. Do you think that there is such a thing as political sab-
otage or political subversion?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't understand what you mean by that.
Mr. Arens. Where the Communists would call upon all their mem-
bers and all of the Conmninist fronts to protest a course of action or
to advocate a course of action for the reason that it would serve the
interests of the Soviet Union. Do you think there is such a thing as
that?
Mr, Fitzgerald. I haven't seen any evidence of it in this country.
I am not too familiar with the workings of the Communist Party. I
can assure you of that.
Mr. Arens. If Alexander Stabor is a Communist, would you take
steps to fire him from the union ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. What is his name?
Mr. Arens. Alexander Stabor, a steward in local 506, UE.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I have to confess to you that I don't even know
the gentleman.
Senator Welker. Counsel, you are asking some pretty — those are
conclusions.
Mr. Arens. Do you know Thomas Flanagan, one of the interna-
tional representatives of the UE?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes ; he works for our organization.
Mr. Arens. You know he was identified by three witnesses as a
member of the Communist Party, under oath.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Were these the same witnesses ?
Mr. Arens. Before the Internal Security Subcommittee.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Are they the same witnesses?
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Senator Welker. Tell him the names of the witnesses.
Mr. Arens. We would have to look them up.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I still^
Mr. Arens. You wouldn't believe those witnesses ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I certainly would not. I would have a feeling,
you know, that they were part — none of them came about until after
we had our difficulties with the CIO, and I just cannot but feel, you
know, that this is a part of the smear job against this union, you see.
Senator Welker. By CIO ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't know.
Senator Welker. You certainly do not accuse me of being a cocon-
spirator of that.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I certainly would not.
Senator Welker. I lost a little hide by a gentleman by the name of
Carey a few weeks ago.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me tell you, for instance. A fellow named
Harry Allen Sherman, I think, has been one of your witnesses.
Senator Welker. Is that right?
Mr. Arens. A Henry Sherman.
Mr. Fitzgerald. He was a lawyer in the Pittsburgh area. We had
a local union, and it is pretty hard to keep tabs when you have so many
local unions. It was a jukebox setup, not workers who build the
272 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
jukeboxes, but the distributors that brought them around and put
them into the various establishments throughout that area. Harry
Allen Sherman, who had never worked inside of a shop at all, to our
knowledge, happened to be the business agent of that local union.
We didn't want that kind of a local union in our setup. We thought
it was a racketeering setup. We expelled that local union from our
union, kicked them out, and kicked Harry Allen Sherman out, too.
Now you come back afterward
Mr. Arens. He was head of the Anti-Communist League in Pitts-
burgh ; wasn't he ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. He has been the head of so damn many things that
I have had a hard time — all I know is that we kicked him out because
we didn't want that kind of a local, and he appears later testifying
against us.
Mr, Arexs. He was head of the Anti-Communist League ; wasn't he ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Not at that time.
Senator Welker. Did he become head of it after he was kicked out?
Mr. Fitzgerald. It must have been after we kicked him out.
Mr. Arens. Would you stand for any militant anti-Communists in
your organization ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I can assure you, we have a hell of a lot of them,
and we don't kick them out.
Mr. Arens. Are you cognizant of the writings of Lenin where he
says:
It is necessary to resort to all sorts of devices, maueuvers, and illegal methods,
to evasion and snbterfnge, in order to penetrate into the trade unions, to remain
in them and to carry on Communist work in them at all costs?
Are you familiar with that ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I appeared last year or the year before last, I think,
before the Kersten committee, and he started reading all kinds of pas-
sages from Lenin, Marx, and everyone else, and I linally said don't
read that stuff to me, there is a danger that you might indoctrinate me.
I am not going to get into that business w^iere you read some of this
stuff from a book that I haven't even seen and then you ask me for
an answer. And I have no inclination to study it, and I don't see how
I can give you an intelligent answer on those questions.
Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, I dealt quite at length today with
respect to your testimony about the false accusations against you, and
I think I told you, not on the record, the reason why I did that. There
are many people in my State who work in the mines. It is very danger-
ous work. I know many of them personally. The union that they
belong to has also been charged. I have not heard any evidence, I have
not gone into that. They were expelled from the CIO because they
were Communist-dominated. I hope you appreciate the fact why I
interrogated you on that matter. Whether these men are friends or
enemies of mine, I think I owe a duty to those people who belong to
that union to find out whether or not they were falsely accused, as you
say your union was falsely accused. Do you agree with me on that,
sir?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think you ought to make every effort to ascertain
the truth about these accusations. I think that the unfortunate thing-
is that in the past few years too many people in Congress have just
assumed that all of these stories were right, and much of it comes about
from an internal squabble inside of the labor movement.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 273
Now, I don't, for one minute, say you know, that there are no (Com-
munists in any organization in the country or anything hke that. I
don't make that assertion. But I do say that our enemies, and I put
among those people inside of the CIO, particularly some of the leaders,
and some of the major industries of this country, enemies of ours be-
cause of the job that we have tried to do to maintain a democratic
organization and fight in the interests of our people, have spread many
malicious lies about us. r„ -, -,
We are proud of the fact that while we have suffered some losses,
and some severe losses on it, we still have one of the most powerful
organizations in this country.
Mr. Arens. Three hundred thousand members ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Approximately 300,000.
Mr. Arens. What is your annual income from the membership ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know that offhand. I can send you that in-
formation. It is filed.
Mr. Arens. Eoughly what is it ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, we get a dollar per month per capita from
the local unions.
Mr. Arens. That is $300,000 a month that the national orgamzation
takes in?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, approximately that, yes. It varies. There
may be layoffs at a given time and it would go down. Business would
pick up and it would go up.
Mr. Arens. How much does the local, as a rule, the average local
take in ? The national gets a dollar.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The union dues run anywhere from a dollar and a
half to $3 a month. In our union the dues are paid to the local union,
and then the local union pays us a portion of it, for which we give them
services in return in helping them to negotiate and also in carrying on
the organizational work of the union, getting new members into the
organization.
Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, before we conclude, I want to
make this statement to you : I have heard it said by you and Mr. Nixon
about these roving investigation committees and I am mindful of
the fact that from your testimony you do not have much credence,
faith, in them. But I want you to know this, the job that we have
is not too pleasant, either. You have seen me work here for several
hours. I have my own office work to do, and I ought to be on the floor
of the Senate. But I want you further to know that never will I be
a party to the false accusation of any human being, whether he be a
Communist, a murderer, or anything else, and I further want you to
know that I have been responsible, personally, for turning out of this
door not one l)ut many, many, many persons that I knew to be members
of the Communist Party.
I have sent them home to relive a life and to save embarrassment to
themselves and to their families. I am not seeking any publicity on
this, because I should never state it to you. But you have related the
many times that you have appeared before congressional commit-
tees, and I sense in it a bit of hatred on your part. But there are hu-
man beings in the Senate. As I told you this morning, if you will
ever give me evidence of the fact that any man who has ever appeared
before a committee that I am a member of, and has committed per-
274 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
jury, I will join hands with you and go down to the district attorney
and see that he gets exactly what he deserves, and that is punishment
in the penitentiary.
That, I believe, sir.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator, I appreciate the heavy duties of a Sen-
ator. In fact, one of the reasons why I fight so hard to keep legislation
from being passed to outlaw unions is that if that should happen, I
would probably be unemployed, and the only avenue that would b&
open for me, then, w^ould be in the field of politics.
Senator AVelker. Do not ever take it. I would rather be unem-
ployed.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Knowing as I do the hard work of a Senator, and
I know my own Congressman from Massachusetts works pretty hard —
in fact we saw him at dinner last night, and he didn't get dinner un-
til after 9 o'clock, I would hate like hell to be a candidate for one of
those jobs.
Mr. Arens. Could I ask a question on one little tie-up here. I un-
derstand you to be a strong advocate of labor unity. I wonder if you
could tell^TS about a meeting that you attended, or did you attend a
meeting down in the New Yorker Hotel in New York City in October
1951, with Bridges, Selly, and Flaxer, and some of the boys on labor
unity ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I attended a meeting in the Hotel New Yorker
with Selly and Bridges.
Senator Welker. Do you mean Harry Bridges?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Harry Bridges.
Mr. Arens. Selly of AC A?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes.
Mr. Arens. And Bridges of the Longshoremens ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. At the particular time, the wage freeze law was
still in existence. The only thing that was discussed at that meeting
while I was there was the joint campaign of ourselves and anyone
else that we could enlist in the campaign to bring an end to the wage
freeze in this country.
Mr. Arens. Who all was there ? Harry Bridges of the Longshore-
men's Union was there ; was he ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. As I recollect it, yes.
Mr. Arens. Wliat is Selly's first name, Joseph? Joseph Selly of
the American Communications Association was there, was he not?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes.
Mr. Arens. And was Abraham Flaxer there, of the United Public
Workers ?
Mr. Fitzgerald, As far as I can recollect, he was. I wouldn't be
too sure. It was a long time ago.
]Vfr. tVrens. Was Osman there of DPOWA?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Osman ? Yes.
Mr. Arens. Was Emspak there?
Senator Welker. Why do you not give him all the names at once?
Mr. Arens. Was Emspak there?
Senator Welker. Counsel, what does this meeting have to do with
the bill before us ?
Mr. Arens. Well, it is just pertinent to the subject brought up by
the witness of labor unity. I just wanted the record to reflect that
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 275
there was at least some semblance of labor unity by certain of the
representatives of certain groups of organized labor at this meeting.
Mr. Nixon. You wish to draw an invidious implication ?
Mr, Akens. I think it pretty well points up its own conclusions.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am sure, and in fact we issued a release at the
end of that meeting — we stated the purpose of the meeting. It was
to bring about an end to the wage freeze. I recollect some Member
of Congress, I don't know who it was, that went around the country
with some kind of a tape recording and played it in a few cities
throughout the country as evidence that there was something con-
spiratorial about this meeting. As I recollect it, the recording
sounded like a Donald Duck business. It was unintelligible.
Mr. Arens. Did you hear the recording ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. No; but some people that did hear it told me
about it, and they told me it was unintelligible. I can assure you that
while I was at tliat meeting, and the meeting broke up, to the best of
my knowledge as I was leaving, because everyone left the room, we
met the newspaper reporters outside the door, we handed them a state-
ment. The only thing we discussed was some way to break the wage
freeze that was shackling the American working people.
Mr. Arens. We have no further questions.
Senator Welker. Do you gentlemen have anything else you desire
to say ?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Nothing, other than to conclude by saying again to
you that we hope that the committee gives very serious consideration
to these proposals. We think that they are very dangerous to the
trade-union movement of the country. We are confident that you will
give it the consideration it deserves. And we Avant to thank you for
giving us tlie opportunity to appear before you. I think we have had a
fair hearing.
Senator Welker. While I am not the chairman of the hearing, I
am just a member of the committee, on behalf of the chairman and
myself, I want to thank you and Mr. Nixon for appearing, and I hope
that you have had a chance to testify as to everything that you want.
We appreciate your coming here. There is no one that knows every-
thing. If it were not for witnesses to tell us their opinions, we would
be in hard straits.
Thank you very much for appearing.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Don Mahon will be the next witness.
Senator Welker. We will suspend for just a moment.
(Brief recess.)
Senator Welker. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Mahon, will you stand, please, and be sworn ?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before the com-
mittee wnll be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Mr. Mahon. I do.
276 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
TESTIMONY OF DON MAHON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL
INDEPENDENT UNION COUNCIL, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS
Senator Welker. Would you state your name ?
Mr. Ma HON. Don Mahon.
Senator Welker. Your residence?
Mr. Mahon. Des Moines, Iowa.
Senator Welker. Your occupation ?
Mr. Mahon. By trade I am a packinghouse refrigeration engineer,
when not representing the union.
Senator AVelker. What union is that?
Mr. Mahon. I am president of the National Brotherhood of Pack-
inghouse Workers, and executive secretary of the National Independ-
ent Union Council.
Senator Welker. How many members have you ?
Mr. Mahon. We have between 8,000 and 10,000 members, and in
the council we are not exactly definite as to the exact membership. It
is more of a cooperative, but 300 unions who have indicated they
represent over half a million people have adopted our program, that
is, helped to sponsor our program. It is not as tightly knit an organ-
ization. Senator, as the major federations; it is a little more like a co-
operative, the council is.
Senator Welker. You may proceed.
Mr. Arens. How many independent unions are there in the United
States ?
Mr. Mahon. To our knowledge, in the United States there is be-
tween 2,000 and 2,500. We have many times attempted to obtain this
information, but it is not available from the Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. They seem to know quite a bit about the
cost of living, and everything else, but we have never been able to
obtain that. We have tried to get them to fix us up a directory of
unions as they do for the major federations, but we have not been suc-
cessful yet.
Mr. Arens. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Mahon
proceed at his own pace to speak extemporaneously, and that his own
statement be incorporated into the record.
Mr. Mahon. The National Independent Union Council was organ-
ized to obtain a more adequate voice and proper recognition of the
more than 2,000 independent unions in this country. The individual
independent union was handicapped in obtaining recognition and
equal treatment from the various governmental agencies. Alone we
were at a considerable disadvantage to withstand the organizational
challenges and political activity from the affiliated organizations of
both labor and management. Therefore, we now cooperate with each
other more closely in order to accomplish our objectives.
Respecting the bills this subcommittee is considering we wish to state
that our organization recognizes the dangerous threat of communism
in this country. Our organization is wholeheartedly in support of the
principle of eliminating Communist Party members, sympathizers,
fellow travelers, and all others who front for them in this country.
Eegardless of whether they are in the labor movement or any other
phase of our social and economic life they must be eliminated. The
problem of Communist infiltration of local independent unions has not
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 277
been the cause of any alarm. The fact that the workers in the local
shop or plant are usually well acquainted with their other fellow work-
ers is probably the best insurance against Communist infiltration be-
cause the average American worker is unalterably opposed to their
ideology and tactics. However, the Communist controlled or influ-
enced unions are always attempting to wipe out local independent
unions because of the very facts mentioned above. They have found
that it is not possible to penetrate local independent unions with the
ease with which they have succeeded in penetrating some of the larger
unions. The reason is that in a larger union the Communist members,
or those who follow the Communist line, can easily shift into a new
locality where they are unknown. They are usually accepted there
locally because the national union endorsed them. Even if a local
member should question their background and motives he would be
held up to scorn and ridicule and probably penalized by the very same
union officials who have endorsed the party advocate. Reluctance of
most union members to question any official representative is under-
standable since loyalty is naturally a basic principle with all union
people. To help guard against Communist infiltration our proposal
is that all representatives and officers of unions be required to sign
non-Communist affidavits. That same be made public and given wide
distribution.
This would provide all members an opportunity to check on repre-
sentatives, that are strangers to him, without fear of his union loyalty
being questioned by anyone.
We believe more publicity concerning Communists and their activi-
ties is needed. When union representatives do pass on any informa-
tion to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, they never receive word
back as to whether there was anything done about it or whether the
evidence was of value.
We believe that the name of every union officer who signs a non-
Communist affidavit should be made available for public inspection.
At present it is almost impossible for the representatives of independ-
ent unions to ascertain if an outside organizer, sent in to raid their
union, has signed a non-Communist affidavit. We believe this loop-
hole should be closed if it is desired to effectively combat these sub-
versives who have wormed their way into some unions. Certainly no
honest union officer, or representative, could object to having it known
that he has signed a non-Communist affidavit.
The suggestions we make, and the past experiences we are citing,
are for the purpose of calling to tlie attention of this committee the
failure of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended,
to accomplish what appears to be some of the objectives of the bills
you are now considering.
Our union, the National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers,
has been in a constant battle for a number of years with an organiza-
tion that has been cited by the Un-American Activities Committee
and alleged to be highly infested with Communists and sympathizers.
We refer to the United Packinghouse Workers, CIO. It always has
and is still using the services of the National Labor Relations Board.
In our opinion they have evaded the intent of the law, or it has
been improperly defined by the National Labor Relations Board. In
fact, officers who were known Communists either withdrew from their
official capacity or signed non-Communist affidavits, thus alleging that
278 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
they were no longer Communists, in order to permit their union to be
in compliance from a technical standpoint.
We have called to the attention of the National Labor Relations
Board the fact that these people were still active in union policy-
making positions and that, therefore, the services of the Board should
be denied to them. In fact, we have pointed this out to the National
Labor Relations Board in case No. 18-RC-1570. We introduced
evidence showing where a well-known Communist was still quite
active in union policymaking affairs.
This man wrote that he is not just a fair-weather Communist,
but is there to stay. This statement, incidentally, was printed in the
union's regular publication. This man was a regional director and
an executive officer and a leader of the 1948 strike.
At the time it became necessary for his union to get in compliance
with the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, he
dropped out as regional director, rather than sign a non- Communist
affidavit. His right-hand assistant was placed in the position. In
fact, they apparently traded positions. His activities continued and
he was, as late as the last convention of the above-mentioned union,
very active in convention activities. By sworn testimony of another
member of their National Executive Committee, we confirmed the
above in an NLRB hearing (case No. 18-RC-1570). We also cited
the constitution of this organization, which gives full authority over
the policy of the organization to its convention.
Nevertheless, in spite of the above testimony and the union's con-
stitution, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the organiza-
tion was in compliance and refused to give consideration to the
evidence. We even went so far as to appeal this decision to former
NLRB Chairman Herzog. He told us personally that while we had
come close we had not come close enough. Therefore, nothing was
done and the union still continues to use the services of the Board.
We have exhibits and statements which we believe clearly indicate
the leanings of the above-mentioned union.
In following their publications it is always interesting to note that
while they are always higlily critical of most of the actions taken by
our Senators and Congressmen, and other duly elected representatives
of the American people, they seldom, if ever, make any uncomplimen-
tary remarks about the Soviet regime. In fact, if statements in the
publication are studied very closely there appears to be a vei-y definite
parallel between the things they advocate and most of the things
advocated by the Daily Worker.
A good example in point is the negative position they took with
respect to the Korean war, where American lives and resources were
heavily engaged. Statements made by that organization, and which
appeared publicly, are the best evidence.
Because our organization has opposed these un-American activities,
many attempts have been made to raise questions concerning the in-
tegrity of our union and its officers in the minds of workers that we
are trying to organize. The same tactics are used against us that
are used against those Senators and Congressmen who sponsor and
advocate bills such as those under discussion and investigation by this
committee at the persent time.
We have with us a good example of the type of propaganda these
people are distributing for purposes of discrediting proposed amend-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 279
iuents to eliminate Communists from the labor movement and from
this country,
I have here an exhibit which, if desired by this committee, we can
have duplicated for your convenience. It is a method used to attack
the Butler bill. In case Senator Butler has not seen it, I am certain
he would be interested in this pamphlet.
The success of any legislation, with respect to the elimination of
Communists, depends entirely upon the spirit and authority of the
agency set up to carry out its enforcement.
Obviously, wide publicity of all the facts is the best way to expose
the Communists, and their advocates or fellow travelers, who are
trying to infiltrate the labor movement.
We have found the National Labor Relations Board to be very
reluctant to assist in any manner when we try to get available infor-
mation concerning Communist-dominated unions. I would like to
cite for your information, copies of correspondence through which
we attempted to obtain the names of the officials and representatives
of unions who had filed non-Communist affidavits. After consider-
able time and effort was applied we did finally get the Associate Gen-
eral Counsel of the Board in Washington to agree to give us this
information under certain very specific circumstances.
For the information of this committee we have attached hereto
a copy of the letter outlining the requirements and procedure that
must he followed. You will note that one of the big reasons given
was that it would be an almost impossible task to keep a list up to
date. However, it is common knowledge that this list must be and
is kept up to date in order to maintain compliance.
Therefore, why would it be difficult to make this information public
is not apparent. We realize that the budget for the National Labor
Relations Board has been cut drastically. We believe the Board needs
more funds in order for them to carry out their job properly. How-
ever, we must question whether or not the excuses given for not making
public the names of those who have signed non-Communist affidavits
is valid.
After we did get some sort of agreement to obtain information by
requesting same from the National Board we find that there is con-
siderable resistance at the regional level when we do try to get this
same type of information for local officers.
Thus far, we have been unable to obtain any such information from,
the National Labor Relations Board's regional office at Atlanta, Ga.
Such tactics by the regional office discourages organizational activity
against the Communist-dominated unions.
In one particular case, the members of the local union had voted to
disaffiliate from the parent organization due to its Communist-inspired
policies and activities. The locals that pulled out set up a defense
fujid and applied for affiliation with other labor organizations. Some
decided to join with our union. We immediately started necessary
action with the regional board. A resume of the facts in the case
therein involved would give this committee and its counsel a clear
understanding of why it is most difficult for unions to get out from
under the domination of a union that they considered to be Commu-
nist-controlled. Most of the roadblocks were set up against them by
the procedures of the regional National Labor Relations Board or its
280 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
regional representatives. Whether intentional or not the result was
the same in this case.
The contradictory attitude we encountered is well demonstrated by
the fact that when our union first filed its petition the regional office
refused to accept because they said we had no local in compliance.
Regional board representatives took the position that this union we
were organizing was a continuation of the previous union and there-
fore it must be in compliance. In order to overcome this objection
our members immediately held an election of local officers and the local
was soon in compliance. We then filed our petition again. Following
the filing of this petition, the regional director dismissed it on the
grounds that the new local was not a continuation of the previous
local.
Therefore, we were not entitled to services of the Board.
This was an exact reversal of the position taken previously. We
cite this case because it clearly indicates the principle stated above.
We trust that this subcommittee, after due consideration, will draft
a bill that is enforceable and also create an agency capable of enforcing
its provisions.
Our organization will be pleased to cooperate with this committee
and its counsel in any manner possible to work out a system whereby
the rights and interests of organized labor and the individual union
member can be protected, but at the same time set up safeguards to
eliminate those who are a threat to our form of government. These
safeguards should not be restricted to labor organizations alone.
(The letters referred to follow :)
National Independent Union Council.
Washington, D. C, December 22, 195S.
Mr. George J. Bott,
General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Bott : Our orffanization is interested in obtaining tlie names and
otlier identifying information contained on tlie nou-Communist affidavits on file
with your Board and its various regional offices.
Please advise us if it would be possible for us to obtain this information.
We have made a similar request at the 10th regional office in Atlanta, Ga.,
but were denied. We understand that it has been the Board policy not to reveal
thi.s information. However, we feel that it is not in the best interest of all con-
cerned to keep this information secret. We are willing, of course, that any
and all interested parties should be advised of those of our officers who have
signed these affidavits.
We believe that full publicity is the best method of making this part of the
act most effective.
We would greatly appreciate your consideration of this matter and any sug-
gestions you might have with respect to our obtaining same.
Yours very sincerely,
Don Mahon, Secretary.
National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D. C, January 27, 195i.
Mr. Don Mahon,
Secretary, National Independent Union Council,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Mahon : This is in further reference to your letter of December 22,
IG.'jS, concerning your desire to obtain certain information with respect to section
9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947. You will
recall that I advised you on January 11, 1954, that a report had been requested
from our Atlanta office.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 281
We understand that it was your desire to obtain a list of all persons who
had filed non-Communist affidavits with our Atlanta office pursuant to section
9 (h) of the act. Apparently it is also your desire to obtain this information
on a national basis.
It is the established policy of this agency that any person may be advised as
to whether a local or international labor organization is considered to be in
compliance with the filing requirements of the act. However, more detailed in-
formation is released only to parties having an interest in the proceeding in-
volved, llius, in any actual or potential proceeding in which one of your
affiliates is involved, the regional director will, upon written application of the
affiliate, release certain specific information concerning compliance with section
9 (h) by other parties to the case. Requests for information concerning inter-
national labor organizations should be addressed to the Affidavit Compliance
Branch in Washington. This informatiim is also available upon written request,
to any employee in the unit involved or to the employer.
Inasmuch as we have over 200,000 affidavits filed each year, I am sure you
will understand that to pursue your suggested policy would create a considerable
administrative burden and result in a disruption of work both here and in
our regional offices. This is particularly true since a list such as you request
would need extensive daily revision in order to avoid being misleading to the
jiossessoi". Accordingly, while we appreciate the reasons underlying your
desire for this information, we must decline to grant your request, except when
written application is made by an interested party in a specific situation.
Very truly yours,
WlIilAM O. MUKDOCK,
Associate General Counsel.
Mr. Mahon. I have, in the statement, tried to outline our position
as clearly and as briefly as I could. In effect, we are in favor of the
principle that we understand to be involved, which is to help to
eliminate communists from the labor movement. The objection that
w^e have that we note thus far is that we feel there is not sufficient
provision made to carry this out or to set up an agency that will deal
effectively with the problem. We base that on the experience that we
have had with the agency set up, which was the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, to carry out the Labor-Management Relations Act, as
amended.
In that case, the intent, as we understand it, was to eliminate Com-
munists from this labor movement in this country. Obviously it
didn't work or hasn't worked the way they administered it. The
union which I represent as president has had a great deal of exper-
ience. We have made our suggestions in accordance with the experi-
ence. In my statement here I have referred specifically to the one
tmion with which we have had considerable experience. That is the
United Packinghouse Workers, CIO.
They still use the services of the Board. They have been cited for
a number of years as an organization that had a number of Com-
munists in it, and that some of their high-ranking officers were Com-
munists. I have covered that in my statement, and have explained
to you the difficulty we have had in dealing with these people, and
dealing with the Labor Board, trying to get the provisions of the law
enforced as we understand them.
The bills that you propose seem to have this same idea in mind.
It is our opinion that they will have to be strengthened in order to
jxccomplish that objective. It is our position that publicity is the
best way of exposing these Communists and their fellow travelers,
and the stooges they use. We believe that that could be done more
effectively than it is.
We have had occasion to try to find out from the National Labor
Relations Board who the representatives were of unions that have
282 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
tried to raid us and unions, especially, that we had heard cited as being-
Communist dominated. It has been very difficult for us to get that
information. I think you can understand how the ordinary, small
union, mostly a local organization, is handicapped when outside or-
ganizers are sent in.
If the intent of Congress is to expose these people, then we think the
record should be made available to the public, and especially to other
union people, and the members who have to make a decision and who
have the most at stake. We tried to get the information from the
National Board down here. Finally they did agree that we could
have it under certain very specific circumstances. We have attached
letters here. But, when we tried to get this same information on a
local basis, we find that it is not forthcoming, and it is more of a
runaround.
We also have copies of letters that I would like to submit for the
record, where, after the Board told us in Washington we could get
this information, they refer us back to the regional board, and w hen
we get to the regional board it is the same kind of a runaround.
Senator Welker. They will be made a part of the record at this
point.
(Letters referred to follow :)
National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers,
Des Moines, Iowa, Fehrnary 19, 195.'f.
Mr. John C. Getreu,
Regioyial Director, Nntionnl Labor Relations Board,
10th Region, Atlanta, Ga.
Dear Mr. Getreu : "We have your letter of February 15. We are requesting:
the names of officers and/or other official representatives of the United Pack-
inghouse Workers of America, CIO, who have filed non-Communist affidavits
with your office and for your region.
We desire this information because of our interest in cases Nos. 10-RC-261.'>
and lO-RC-2617. As you know, these cases are before the Board. We have
other potential cases ijending in other Swift's and Armour's plants in your area
which certainly will affect this same labor organization.
We trust that this will be the information you desire as requested in your
letter.
Your prompt forwarding of the names and addresses of the above-mentioned
officers will be very greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Don Mahon, President.
National Labor Relations Boaiu), IOth Region,
Atlanta, Ga., Fehrnary 15, ID',',.
Don Mahon,
President, National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Worlcers,
Des Moines, Iowa.
Dear Mr. Mahon : This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 19.^4, iu
which you request to be informed as to tlie names and related information con-
cerning officers and other official representatives of the United Packinghouse
Woi'kers of America, CIO, who have filed non-Communist affidavits in this office.
The agency's policies do not allow the furnishing of the requested information.
Before names of officers, etc.. may be furnished, it is necessary that there be an
actual or a potential proceeding before the Board, and the information would
then be limited to the local union or unions affected by such proceeding.
If desired, you are at liberty to appeal this denial of your request to the
General Counsel in Washington, D. C. Any such appeal should give the reasons
for your request.
Very truly yours,
John C. Getreu, Regional Director.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 283
National Broi'Heiihood of Packinghouse Wokkers,
DCS Moines, Iowa, Fchruary 11, 195Ii.
Mr. John C. Getreu,
Di/rector, 10th Region, National Labor Relations Board,
Atlanta, Oa.
Dear Mr. Getreu : Our union, the National Brotlierhood of Packingliouse
AVorkers, is ijreseutl.v engaged in an organizational campaign among packing-
house workers, food handlers, distributors, and processors and neighboring or
related industries in your region. In some cases other unions will be involved.
We are, therefore, interested in knowing the names and related information in
your files concerning officers and other official representatives of the United
Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, who have filed non-Communist affi-
davits at the regional level in your area.
Your kind attention and early reply with respect to this matter will be very
gi*eatly appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Don Mahon, President.
National Labor Relations Board, 10th Region,
Atlanta, Ga., December 9, 1953.
Mr. Don Mahon,
Eieriitive Sccretnrji, National Independent Union Council,
Washinf/ton, D. C.
Dear Mr. Mahon : This is to confirm the information that was orally given
to you on December 8 by Field Examiner A. C. Joy to the effect that your or-
ganization may neither be furnished with a list of all persons who have filed
with this office non-Communist affidavits pursuant to section 9 (h) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act nor permitted to examine such documents.
This also constitutes confirmation of Mr. Joy's oral word to the effect that,
if desired, such rulings may be appealed to the Board's General Counsel. Such
apiieal, if filed, must give the reasons for your request.
Very truly yours,
John C. Getreu, Regional Director.
Mr. Mahon. Our union and its officers have been discriminated
against from the standpoint, we believe, of equal treatment by the
National Labor Relations Board in the handling of cases. We have
cited at various times cases where the facts were exactly or almost
identical and the decision that comes out for us is exactly the opposite
to what comes out when the union that we haA^e cited here as being
mentioned as one of those that is Communist dominated by various
Government agencies gets a different answer. We have cases pending
right now where that is the situation.
We believe that the agency that is set up to carry out any law that
may be enacted by this committee should contain some more effective
guaranties against this type of dual treatment. Section 7 of the
existing Labor Relations Act guarantees employees the right to form,
join, or assist unions of their own choosing. In order to make that
part of the law effective, there must be provisions made to carry it
out in the case of a local union. If that is not done, local unions will
be eliminated; people will be unable to get representation in that
manner if this agency that is set up to carry out the law isn't made
more effective. We believe that the Senate realizes that situation.
They have certainly realized it in the case of business. They have
set up a special committee to look after the interests of small business
who operate pretty much on a local basis. Certainly small unions
should receive comparable consideration.
284 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. Would you mind this question, sir : What is the aggre-
gate membership of these three-hundred-odd independent unions that
are allied in this association that you have mentioned?
Mr. Maiiox. The ones that have endorsed our program have indi-
cated, from the information they have provided us Avith, that they
represent something over 500,000 people. As I say, we have no way
of checking that. Of course, we don't police those unions in the same
manner that some of the major federations might police theirs, but
they have indicated to us that they represent that number of people.
Mr. Arens. What is the aggregate membership of the some 2,000
independent unions in the United States, would you say?
Mr. Mahox. We don't know, of course, for sure. But we have no
way of knowing that. We tried to get that from the Department
of Labor, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, The nearest that we can
come to that is, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I think,
some 49.8 million are gainfully employed in this country, the highest
point of employment. And at that time, the claim of the CIO and the
A. F. of L. was that they had something around 15 or 16 million
together.
As you can see, the remainder are in independent unions or un-
organized. Of course, I am referring to nonagricultural workers. I
have no way of knowing that. We have tried many times to get that
information. The source of our information on the 2,000 unions, of
course, is a mailing list that we have compiled. The majority of those
unions, of course, are located a long way from Washington, and unless
they have occasion to use the services of the NLRB or some agency
such as that, it is pretty hard to kee]) track of them.
However, during wage stabilization, as a result of some of the pro-
tests we made down here of not being represented on that wage
stabilization board, there was set up within the framework of the
wage stabilization board an office for independent unions, which was
sort of a half-way measure that they used to get around our request
for equal consideration, and through that office there were handled
cases involving something like, I believe, 2,300 or 2,400 different inde-
pendent unions.
The independent unions we refer to do not include the so-called
Commie unions that have separated from the CIO. Neither do we
claim to represent such organizations as the railroad brotherhoods
or the mine workers or the large ones like that. They can speak for
themselves and do.
Our primary interest is with the smaller unions who ordinarily have
one or more locals and usually their membership is in the hundreds
and thousands, and not over a hundred thousand.
I think most of them are under that. But those are the ones we
primarily refer to. There is no source that I know of where that
information can be obtained.
Mr. Arens. Do you have information to supply the committee, Mr.
Mahon, with respect to a Communist-controlled union ?
Mr. Mahon. The information that I refer to is with respect to the
treatment received by our union when we are engaged in controversies
with the union, the United Packinghouse Workers of America, that
has been cited as Communist controlled. It was cited by the House
Un-American Activities Committee.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 285
We have a copy of a resignation from one of their officials, a resig-
nation from his office, before the signing of the non-Coimnunist affi-
davits took place in order that their union might meet in compliance.
Since that time, we established by sworn testimony of another of their
executive officers in an NLRB hearing that this man was still active
in their organization in that he was a delegate to the convention and
active in the convention which, according to their constitution, is a
policymaking body of that organization. That case that I refer to
is NLRB 18-RC-1570.
The document that I have here is a sample of the tactics used to
discredit our organization or any organization, or any Senator or any
Congressman, who sees fit to propose legislation to eliminate Com-
munists from the labor movement.
Mr. Arens. What is that document that you have, specifically?
Mr, Mahon. This document that I have here is called the Blade,
issued by District Council 3 of the United Packinghouse Workers of
America, CIO. In bold headlines it declares on the outside that the
"Butler Law Crushes Local, Other Locals Gear for Big Fight." In
the article on page 4, it explains the alleged effects of the Butler bill
which, according to this article, are very detrimental to organized
labor and this union in particular. After going through this article
and making these allegations, at the end they have a statement that
says, "That is quite a story, isn't it i It is not true."
Nevertheless, this paper was distributed through the mails to thou-
sands of people, I believe — at least I know that it was received by
some — and of course it had the effect of creating in the minds of those
people, and many of them, of course, are people who we hope to
organize into our union, the thought that this type of legislation was
detrimental to labor and that we were in favor of it.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the docu-
ment which Mr. Mahon is referring to be incorporated by reference
in the record and filed with the committee.
Senator Welker. It is so ordered.
(The document referred to was filed with the committee.)
Mr. Arens. Is there anything else that you wanted to bring to the
attention of the committee, Mr. Mahon ?
Mr. Mahon. I believe that most of our position is covered by our
statement.
Mr. Arens. And which the chairman has already ordered to be in-
corporated into the record.
Mr. Mahon. Yes. Our feeling is that the solution to this problem
is greater publicity, and the making available of the information that
the Government has concerning these subversives in the labor move-
ment or any place else a matter of public record.
Mr. Arens. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Arens. Mr. Mahon, does your organization, both the packing-
house organization, the National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Work-
ers, and the National Independent Union Council, endorse the princi-
ples involved in the three bills currently pending before the sub-
committee ?
Mr. Mahon. We certainly do, most wholeheartedly endorse the
principle of the elimination of Communists from the American labor
4390S— 54 19
286 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
movement, and we don't believe that that limitation should be re-
stricted to labor organizations alone. We think it should be applied
equally to business concerns, to all other organizations in our society.
We trust that this committee in drafting legislation will not put in a
boomerang such as the signing of the non-Communist affidavit in the
Taft-Hartley Act by only one party.
Mr. Arens. So that our record is clear, do you endorse the princi-
ples of this legislation ?
Mr. Mahon. Yes, we do.
Mr. Arens. Is there anything else, Mr. Mahon, that you wanted to
bring to the attention of the committee?
Mr. Mahon. I believe that the documents that 1 have introduced
along with this statement are sufficient.
Mr. Arexs. Well, the committee, then, thanks you for your testi-
mony. We appreciate very much indeed your courtesy in appearing
today and in waiting so long today, patiently, to appear. We have
had two other witnesses with extensive testimony on this record today.
We want to thank you for your kindness and courtesy and patience
with the committee.
Mr. Mahon. I appreciate that, and I will be pleased to cooperate
in any way possible to give you further assistance.
Senator Welker. The subcommittee will be in recess, subject to
the call of the chairman.
(Whereupon, at 4:57 the hearing was recessed, subject to the call
of the chairman.)
SUBVEESIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1954
United States Senate,
Stjbcommittee To Investigate the Administration
or THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal
Security Laws, or the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington^ D. C.
The task force of the subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to
call, in room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler
(chairman of the task force) presiding.
Present: Senators Butler, Hendrickson, and Eastland.
Present also : Richard Arens, special counsel ; Frank Schoeder and
Edward Duffy, professional staff members.
Senator Butler. The subcommittee will come to order.
Mr. Arens, will you call the first witness?
Mr. Arens. The first witness, sir, will be Mr. Boulware.
Will 3^ou kindly come forward ?
Senator Butler. Will you hold up your right hand, please? In
the presence of Almighty God, do you solemnly swear that you will
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Mr. Boulware. I do.
Senator Butler. The witness is sworn. Counsel.
TESTIMONY OF LEMUEL E. BOULWAEE, VICE PRESIDENT, GENEEAL
ELECTEIC CO., ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM J. BAEEON, LABOE
EELATIONS COUNSEL, GENEEAL ELECTEIC CO.
Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and
occupation.
Mr. Boulware. INIy name is Lemuel R. Boulware. I am a resident
of New York City. I am vice president of the General Electric Co,
My associate is Mr. William J. Barron, who will also testify, our
company's labor coimsel.
Mr. Arens. Were you sworn?
Mr. Barron. No, I was not.
Senator Butler. In the presence of Almighty God, do you solemnly
promise and declare that the evidence you will give to this task
force will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God ?
Mr. Barron. Yes, sir.
287
288 SUBVERSIVE I^iFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr, Arens. Mr. Barron, will you kindly identify yourself in like
manner?
Mr. Barron. My title is labor relations counsel. I am associated
with Mr. Boulware. I serve Mr. Boulware's organization.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Boulware, you have a prepared statement which
you have submitted to the committee? Is that correct?
Mr, Boulware. Yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. I respectfully suggest at this point that the state-
ment be incorporated into the record and Mr. Boulware proceed
extemporaneously to cover his points.
Senator Butler. It will be so ordered.
(Mr. Boulware's prepared statement follows:)
Statement of General Electric Co., Prepared for Presentation Before the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
In order that you may understand more fully our subsequent comments on the
legislation you are considering, we would like to discuss briefly the present situ-
ation as we see it and the general principles which we think you should weigh in
considering new legislation. This is the fifth time we have appeared before
congressional committees to urge more adequate legislation on communism.
Since our priority testimony in 1952, 1953, and 1954 is available to you, we shall
attempt to minimize the amount of duplication, but we respectfully refer you
to it.
I. the security problem in general
It is indisputable that government has the exclusive responsibility for estab-
lishing and enforcing measures which will effectively remove any potential
traitors or enemy agents from positions of power or influence wherever they are
found in a position to damage the Nation's industrial security.
No government can long neglect this responsibility without destroying public
confidence and creating unrest and discord. The matter is so delicate and
charged with so much emotion that it should be handled by the best available
professionals carrying out clear policies of Congress.
It is becoming more and more clear that security with respect to the problem
of communism in industry may be said to have two separate but related aspects.
The first aspect of the problem relates to Communists functioning as leaders of
labor imions ; the second relates to the problem of individual subversives in
industry.
The problem of Communist-dominated unions
For almost 20 years, the Federal law has compelled employers, as it still does,
to recognize and bargain with any labor organization certified to it by the
National Labor Relations Board. And the NLRB continues obliged to certify
various unions which have been repeatedly accused of Communist domination
before congressional committees.
In the electrical industry alone, there are approximately 300 employers, includ-
ing ourselves, who are under obligation of Federal law, in about 1,000 different
plants, to recognize and deal exclusively with the United Electrical Workers.
This is one of the unions which has been repeatedly accused by congressional
committees of Communist domination, but no authoritative legal determination
has been made of that fact. Consequently, the NLRB continues to certify UE
as a union with which we and the 300 other employers must deal exclusively as
representative of a claimed one-third of a million employees working at loca-
tions vital to the economy and national defense.
Although UE still gets all the special protections and exemptions provided by
Federal law for loyal trade unions, its position before a congressional committee
only last year was that Communists should be allowed to be elected to union
oflSces. Before this committee last week, as before other congressional commit-
tees, UE officers have claimed the fifth amendment's protection against self-
incrimination in refusing to answer questions concerning their alleged Commu-
nist aflSliations,
In view of these facts and others, we and large portions of the public have long
since come to believe the repeated and never disproved charges of UE's Com-
munist leadership.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 289
Despite the loug-known existence of Communist-dominated unions, the Gov-
ernment has, for the most part, refrained from acting as forcefully with respect
to them as it has with respect to other kinds of Communist organizations. For
example, the Attorney General of the United States prepares and publishes lists
of organizations which he determines are "totalitarian, Fascist, Communist, or
subversive." But, in preparing these lists, the names of no labor unions are
listed. Likewise, no proceedings have been begun under the Internal Security
Act of 1950 against any of the much-suspected. C^uunumist-doniinated unions.
It appears that they are not subject to such act since it applies only to organiza-
tions primarily operating for the purpose of aiding a foreign Communist gov-
ernment or other Communist organization.
It seems incredible that the United States Government should order even
defense plant employers to bargain with unions so generally regarded as Com-
munist dominated. In fact, it is so unbelievable that the average person may
be occasionally led to wonder if employers are dealing with Communist unions
in defiance of the law, rather than because of a compelling legal obligation.
We believe the first duty of any security legislation is to see that the Govern-
men shall : First, clear the air authoritatively and definitively as to who are, in
fact. Communist union leaders ; and second, prohibit such union leaders from
functioning in any way as the bargaining representatives of any employees.
Until Congress effectively shoulders this responsibility, the amateurs, the volun-
teers, and others — some of them for selfish purposes, but most with the very best
of good will, but lacking the needed professional skill — will feel called on to
continue and even increase their efforts to deal with the problem outside the law.
For too long now it has apparently been considered too diflScult or politically
dangerous to adopt legislation aimed at effectively and thoroughly eliminating
Communists from union leadership. We believe that the vast body of loyal
American union members will overwhelmingly support any fair legislation which
will lielp them resolve this problem and really clean house.
But in devising legislation, the duty of Government to expose and identify
Communists should not be delegated or left to private citizens.
An employer certainly should not have the right to decide that he will not
recognize a union chosen by his employees because he believes that union is
Communist dominated. Employees, the public, and the courts would suspect
that such a power might be abused — deliberately or through wishful thinking —
to get rid of effective union leaders. The basic principle of the Wagner and
Taft-Hartley Acts is to guarantee that employees — and not employers — will
choose the union to be bargained with.
The same reasons should properly prevent union leaders from having the
power to authoritatively decide when a rival union oflScial is a Communist.
Internal union politics often get pretty bitter and the power to brand a rival
as a Communist might likewise be abused — deliberately or through wishful
thinking.
The proMeiu of individual subversives
We believe there is immediate and urgent need that Congress reexamine its
policy with respect to individual subversives in industry. There is no policy now
in effect which prevents subversives known to Government agencies from worlving
on nonclassified or civilian work in plants whicli are doing defense work or which
would he vital to the defense of the United States in the early stages of a war
emergency.
The security agencies of this country and defense contractors are enforcing
no more than a limited security program — and. we believe, they are doing an ex-
cellent job within that narrow program. That program is" designed onlv to
protect secrets or classified information. It does not guard against sabotage.
The Internal Security Act and Emergency Detention Act apparently contem-
plate that there may well be subversives in vital industrial plants who will be
removed therefrom only after declaration of war by Congress, invasion, or in-
surrection in aid of a foreign enemy.
Under the present limited security program, agencies of the Department
of Defense work closely with defense contractoi-s in seeing to it that no em-
ployee works on classified Government defense work if lie is considered a
security risk in any sense of the word. The term "security risk," however, is
not generally understood by the public or by employees. It includes, of course,
any employee who is suspected of having serious past or present subversive -T'on-
nections. In addition, however, the term also includes an employee who is
thought not to be sufficiently reliable (for reasons not reflecting unfavorably
290 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
upon his loyalty) to be trusted with access to classified information. Thus, a
person may be deemed a "security risk" and barred from working; on "classified"
defense jobs merely because he is an alien or in debt or mislit be subjected to
subversive pressures because of having relatives behind the Iron Curtain.
Under the present individual security pro.uram, Government agencies direct
contractors to exclude from classified defense work all employees whom they
find to be security risks, but the individual employer does not receive from the
Government the evidence which supports its conclusion. The individual em-
ployer, therefore, cannot establish whether the employee is regarded as a sub-
versive or as a security risk for reasons not related to disloyalty.
Defense contractors, like the General Electric Co., under such circumstances,
comply with the security regulations by insuring that a designated security risk
does not work upon, and does not have access to, classified Government informa-
tion. But under this inadequate procedure, some employees, who are deemed
by the Government to be subversives in the genuine sense of the word and are
under Government surveillance as such, are permitted to remain in areas of that
critical plant where they do not have access to classified work.
We have long been dissatisfied with a security program which did not ad-
vise us which of our employees the Government considered genuine subversives
as opposed to those which it considered security risks in the less dangerous
sense. I^pon the outbreak of the Korean war, we unsuccessfully attempted to
have the Government provide us with the names of, and information concerning,
any of our employees considered to be subversive. ^Ye could not get such in-
formation and were advised that the entii-e security program was under study.
We later recommended to the Government security agencies that, since we
did not have access to the evidence in their files, they at least should determine
and direct when an employee should be excluded from unclassified civilian work,
as well as from classified military work. This recommendation also was
rejected.
Last year, as an interim measure, pending more adequate Government regu-
lation, we adopted a policy we believed necessary to solve the problem at least in
part. This policy calls for the ultimate discharge of any employee who invokes
the fifth amendment in refusing to answer questions concerning Communist affili-
ntions before a governmental authority. The policy provides for suspension for
TsO days, with pay. during which time the employee may be cleared and reinstated
by answering fully under oath all questions asked him by a governmental author-
ity concerning espionage, saliotage. and the employee's Communist affiliations.
He may also lie cleared, if he is able to secure a certification from a Government
agency that there is no evidence indicating he is a substantial risk for employ-
ment.
In adopting this policy, we recognized that it was not a complete solution to
the problem of possible subversives in our plants. However, we felt obligated
to our employees, share owners and the public to utilize it until the Government
adopts measui-es to adequately cope with the prolilem.
Defense Department representatives who supervise the Government's security
programs at our plants, and our own security officers can be proud that not a
single 1 of 17 employees suspended under General Electric's policy had been
given clearance or worked on a classified job. That security problems exist
regardless of union affiliations is indicated by the following :
Of the 17 suspended employees. 8 were UE members, 1 was a membei' of an
AFL plumbers union. 1 was a member of an AFL draftsmen's union, 5 were
lUE (CIO) members and 2 more were represented by lUE although apparently
not members.
There is no reason or justification for continuing the confusion which exists
with respect to employees deemed to be security risks. There is no re.ison or
justification for continuing a situation which, iiecause of the ambiguity of this
term, makes it possible for genuine subversives, with the knowledge and consent
of the United States Government, to continue in the employment of defense
jilants and plants which would probably have to be converted overnight to
defense work at the outset of a w.ir emergency.
We believe genuine subversives should be barred from all work in a plant
needed for national defense. At present, the policy of the Government is not
to bar either subversives or the lesser kinds of security risks so long as they do
not have access to classified work. We believe the current policy of merely
having known subversives kept under FBI surveillance is fraught with great
danger.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 291
We think Congress must now determine wlietlier the present, limited kind of a
security program is adequate and if not, what additional measures Government
agencies and defense contractors will be empowered to adopt.
Employers and defense contractors should not be authorized to embark pri-
vately upon sweeping programs for judging the loyalty of employees. In the very
nature of the problem, such action might compel them to make discharges based
upon suspicions and rumors which the employer would be in no position to author-
itatively evaluate or prove.
Like the problem of Communist domination of unions, it seems indisputably
the responsibility of Government to declare and cari-y out a policy necessary to
remove subversives from any position where they may cause serious damage to
the Nation's security.
n. PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION
Commtinist domination of unions
As to Comminiist domination of unions, we believe that the principles neces-
sary in any legislation are as follows :
(1) There should be official Government investigation and identification of
unions and union leaders alleged to be Communist dominated. This legislation
should be directed against individuals and not against unions. Even in those
imions believed to be clearly Communist dominated, 99 percent of the membership
is loyal. The rank and file, therefore, should, under any legislation adopted, be
given the opportunity and provided the incentive for purging the Communist
leaders and replacing them with loyal union officials.
(2) The legislation must establish sound criteria pursuant to which the appli-
cable Government agency could determine whether a union is Communist domi-
nated. This is by all means the most difficult part of the task. The criteria must
be so established that it will lead with certainty to the conviction of the guilty
and acquittal of the innocent.
(3) While the greatest procedural protections sliould be afforded any accused
individual or union, the law should legally prohibit a Communist labor leader or
a Connnunist-dominated union from continuing to function as a representative of
employees for collective bargaining. It will not be sufficient merely to withdraw
the legal assistance now given such unions by Federal law.
Individual security problem
Again in this phase of the problem, the primary consideration is to guarantee
fairness while insuring professional competence in determining whether a
given individual is a genuine subversive so as to justify his exclusion from em-
ployment in critical defense plants.
We believe all employees in plants now doing defense work and other plants
which would have to be inmiediately converted to defense work in time of war,
should be subject to investigation by Government security agencies. If the Gov-
ernment finds that they are the kind of subversives who would be seized and
detained by the Attorney General under the present emergency detention law, the
agency should direct their discharge. We see no justification for allowing such
known subversives to continue to have access to plants which they could damage
irreparably in the first few hours of a war emergency.
III. OUR SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Communist domination of unions
We continue to believe — as we have stated so often before — that there is need
for a statute incorporating the principles, if not the precise language, embodied
in the Goldwater-Rhodes bill, S. 1254. We have, however, the following sug-
gestions to make with respect to it :
(1) We recommend that section G be reexamined carefully — and with such
assistance as you can secure from loyal trade-union officials or liieir attorneys.
The purpose should be to insure that the criteria for ascertaining Communist
domination will not mistakenly cover loyal persons or organizations — no matter
how radical or distasteful their political and economic views may otherwise be.
(2) Under paragraph 6 (a) (1), as now drafted, the Board would be author-
ized to consider as significant membership in the Communist Party only if it was
subseciuf'nt to .January 1, 1949. We think this date sould be moved back to
January 1, 1947. We believe this, because it is so well known that many Com-
munist leaders have apparently followed the technique of resigning formal
membership in the Communist Party in order to file the Taft-Hartley non-Com-
292 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
munist affidavits. These same leaders would therefore probably escape the
provision of section 6(a) ( 1 ) as it now stands.
Our reasons for recommending S. 1254, rather than S. 1606, briefly summarized,
are as follows :
(1) We think the Goldwater bill contains clear and deserved protection to
unions and individuals against possible trumped up or flimsy charges of Com-
munist domination l)y allowing charges to be brought only by the Attorney Gen-
eral, rather than by private persons. We cannot be sure whether under S. 1606
employers or rival unions would be free to prefer trumped up charges which
would then permit the NLRB to conduct an election. We also think it is tech-
nically necessary to provide, as does the Goldwater bill, that the NLRB's con-
tract bar doctrine will not prevent conducting an election once the Attorney
General has filed a charge.
(2) The Goldwater bill in section 8 (b) contains a very advantageous provi-
sion not found in Senator Butlers' bill. This is the provision which withdraws
from a witness the right to refuse to testify on grounds of self-incrimination,
but at the same time grants him immunity from prosecution concerning any
matter about which he testifies. This is not a novel provision, for the same rule
is now found in the National Labor Relations Act itself. However, armed with
this procedural device, the Attorney General should be able to select many
minor witnesses who at one time may have been Communist Party members and
receive from them testimony about major officials as to whom it might other-
wise be difliciilt to obtain evidence.
(3) The Goldwater bill allows a union to reorganize or clean house, if it
takes affirmative action required of it by the Control Board. It seems fair that,
if rank-and-file employees are willing to get rid of Communist leaders, they
should be given a chance and the incentive to do so. This provision would
clearly show to employees and the public that the bill is not union busting, but
is aimed only at disloyal individual leaders.
(4) We do not believe that the Butler bill goes far enough in the penalties
which it would impose. The only real penalty in the Butler bill is the withdrawal
of the protections of the Labor-Management Relations Act from a Communist-led
labor organization.
You undoubtedly know that many unions found it possible to prosper after 1947
without having access to the protections of the Labor-Management Relations Act.
In our own company we and our employees suffered two rather long and costly
strikes called by the UE during the time that union was refusing to file the non-
Communist affidavit. The strikes were called by UE simply because we refused
to recognize it without NLRB certifications, even though it apparently represented
the majority of employees in each of the two plants struck.
We therefore endorse the theory of S. 1254 that if a union is determined by the
Board and the courts to be Communist dominated, and its members fail to oust
the Communist leaders, that union should then be denied the privilege of exercis-
ing legal benefits designed by Congress for the protection of bona fide trade unions.
For example, such a Communist union should not be entitled to the protections of
the Norris-LaGuardia anti-injunction statute or the special exemption from the
antitrust laws afforded trade unions. In addition, such a Communist-dominated
union should be specifically prohibited from soliciting, accepting, or receiving
membership dues under the pretense that it is a bona fide labor organization.
In addition to our recommendation of S. 1254, we believe there is substantial
merit in the recent recommendation to your committee of Mr. Stone, president of
American Cable & Radio Corp. However, we think there are minor amendments
and additions which could he made to his proposal. With such minor changes,
his proposal might do much to speedily clarify a large part of the present situa-
tion during the time when hearings under the Goldwater bill were in progress
to authoritatively, finally, and judicially settle the most difficult ones.
One drawback to Mr. Stone's recommendation is that, like S. 1606, it would
have no effect whatsoever upon a union wliich believed it was strongly enough
entrenched to exist without access to the NLRB. The Goldwater bill is the only
proposal which would reach such unions.
As to unions which wanted to use the NLRB, we believe it unrealistic to require
merely an affidavit that a union officer was not a Communist subsequent to June
25, 19.50. For reasons above indicated in discussing the Goldwater bill, we believe
the important date is January 1947 — -prior to the time the Communist leaders
apparently went through the uniform motions of formally resigning from the
Communist Party.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 293
We think it an unnecessarily expensive provision, under Mr. Stone's proposal,
to require all unions to distribute to their members copies of aflBdavits filed. We
think that in the majority of cases, where there is no hint of Conmmnist domina-
tion, this might well be regarded as harassment.
On the other hand, we suggest that, if you adopt an aflBdavit procedure of the
kind recommended, you should consider requiring a provision to the effect that
tlie party signing it waives his right to invoke the fifth amendment with respect
to any matter connected with or pertinent to his answers, if he is subsequently
interrogated on such matters by the National Labor Relations Board, a Federal
grand jury, or other agency of the Federal Government.
We think there may be some merit in using the affidavit approach recommended
liy Mr. Stone for the short run and immediate problem while at the same time
adopting S. 1254 to cover unions which would not seek NLRB assistance. If this
is done, we feel that the problem of Communist-dominated unions which has
plagued til is country for almost 20 years will be well on the road to solution
within a year and would probably be completed within less than 2 or 3 years.
Legislation concerning individual subversives
Congress was obviously aware of the problem of individual subversives in pri-
vate industry when it passed the Internal Security Act and Emergency Detention
Act of 1950. However, we believe that our above discussion and any analysis of
these laws establish that their provisions are inadequate to cope with the situa-
tion. Senator McCarran's bill, S. 23, apparently recognizes this situation and is
directed, in part, at remedying it, as well as dealing with the problem of Com-
munist-dominated unions.
For the reasons indicated below, we do not believe that S. 23 would be an
adequate solution of the problem.
The present Internal Security Act, to the extent it applies to the problem
we are here discussing, provides that it is unlawful for a person to engage in
employment in a defense facility, if he is a member of a Communist-action or-
ganization against whom a final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board
has been entered. It also provides that it is unlawful for any person, "in seeking,
accepting, or holding employment in any defense facility," to conceal the fact
that he is a member of a Communist-front organization, against whom, a final
order of the Board has been entered.
The inadequacy of such provisions should now be demonstrated by experience
under tlie Taft-Hartley Act. The non-Communist afiidavits there have been
largely rendered meaningless because the persons most suspected merely resign
from formal membership in Communist organizations. As under the Taft-
Hartley Act, the above provisions of the Internal Security Act speak about
Communist organization membership in the present tense, and place no sig-
nificance on sucli membership prior to the entry of a final order of the Control
Board. Experience with tlie inadequacies of such approach under the Taft-
Hartley Act should convince us of the inadequacies of this section of the Internal
Security law.
Subsection 2 (d) of S. 23 is apparently conceived with the idea that individual
employers should be immunized from liability for discharging employees for the
I'easons enumerated in that section ; that is, for discharging employees who are
members of an organization listed by the Attorney General as subversive ; em-
ployees who have actively concealed membership in such an organization ; or
employees who refuse to tell a congressional committee whether they have know-
ingly or willingly been a member of such organization.
We do not think that this provision adds anything to the present law for the
reason that it merely recites that '"nothing in this act or any other statute of the
United States shall preclude an employer from discharging an employee for the
above-stated reasons." As we have indicated above, General Electric already
has a policy of suspending and then ultimately discharging employees who invoke
the fifth amendment before a congressional committee concerning Communist
affiliations.
Actually, this provision does not state that it is congressional policy that
employees who come within its terms should be discharged. It, therefore, seems
objectionable in that it does not clearly indicate the policy of Congress and,
in part, it seems to imply that Congress is delegating its responsibility in these
matters to private parties. For reasons more fully expressed above, we believe
that Congress should face its responsibility of clearly determining what the
national policy is and then establish effective measures to enfoi'ce it.
The task of determining who are subversives against whom the Nation's
defense facilities need to be protected is a complex, difficult one which really
294 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
needs to be placed in the hands of professional, unbiased, and impartial in-
vestigative aseneies, with appropriate protections afforded by administrative and
judicial review. We do not think that the interests of the country will be served
b.v expecting or requiring that the .iob be done by private persons or employei*s
who do not have either the professional competence, facilities, or investigative
power possessed b.v Government — all of which are required for the making
of sound and objective decisions in this area.
We recomend that, as a matter of preparation and prevention — in advance of
the time of actual danger — Congress should make it the responsibility of the
Government security agencies to investigate and determine when "there is rea-
sonable ground to believe" that employees in vital defense facilities "will engage
in or probably will conspire with others to engage in acts of espionage or
sabotage." This is the test now in force for determining whether the Attorney
General shall seek to arrest and detain employees upon the outbreak of war.
We suspect, although we, of course, do not know, that the Attorney General prob-
ably has a substantial list of persons who already fit this test. It is also quite
conceivable that a number of such persons are now employed in critical defense
facilities. The defense contractors in whose plants these persons are employed,
however, are not informed or advised as to whether such employees are sub-
versive in this sense. Even though such persons are now under FBI surveillance,
the Government is taking too large a gamble that they could be apprehended on
the outbreak of war before committing extensive sabotage.
It is our opinion tliat it is unwise to knowingly permit seriously suspected
subversives to remain in the employ of critical defense establishments until the
outbreak of war. Yet this is what the Internal Security Act and the Emergency
Detention Act apparently contemplate. Our recommendation is that instead of
waiting iintil actual wartime to remove subversives from plants doing defense
work or which would be immediately required for defense work, the Internal
Security Act should provide a means for having them identified in peacetime
by the Government, followed by directions that they be discharged from em-
ployment in any such plants. Our suggestion, of course, contemplates that they
would be afforded the right of administrative and judicial review and that the
Government should provide compensation for those who, upon such review, are
found to have been unjustly accused and suffered losses in earnings.
Mr. BouLWARE. With your permission, I would like to read some of
the first 10 pages.
Senator Butler. You may proceed.
Mr. BouLWARE. In order that you may understand more fully our
subsequent comments on the legislation you are considering, we would
like to discuss briefly the present situation as we see it and the general
principles which we think you should weigh in considering new legis-
lation. This is the fifth time we have appeared before congressional
committees to urge more adequate legislation on communism.
In fact, it is the seventh time, if you take my two appearances in
1949 into consideration.
Since our prior testimony in 1949, 1952, 1953, and 1954 is avail-
able to you, we shall attempt to minimize the amount of duplication,
but we respectfully refer you to it.
It is indisputable that Government has the exclusive responsibility
for establishing and enforcing measures which will effectively re-
move any potential traitors or enemy agents from positions of power
or influence wherever they are found in a position to damage the
Nation's industrial security.
It is becoming more and more clear that security with respect to the
problem of communism in industry may be said to have two separate
but related aspects. The first aspect of the problem relates to Com-
munists functioning as leaders of labor unions; the second relates to
the problems of individual subversives in industry.
For almost 20 years the Federal law has compelled employers, as it
still does, to recognize and bargain with any labor organization certi-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 295
fied to it by the National Labor Kelations Board. And the NLKB con-
tinues obliged to certify various unions which have been repeatedly
accused of Communist domination before congressional committees.
Senator Butler. At that point I don't want to interrupt your testi-
mony, but I would like Mr. Barron or yourself, at some time before
you leave here today, to touch on the right of labor to choose its own
representatives. I would like to have an explanation of that from
the standpoint of industry. The persons that we have had before us
representing organized labor have insisted that all of the measures
now pending before this committee would, in effect, deny labor the
right to choose its own representatives. I would like to hear indus-
try's point of view on that question. I do not want you to do it now,
because I do not want to break into the orderly presentation of your
thesis, but I would like you to cover that situation before you leave.
Mr. BouLWARE. It is covered, I think, as we go along here.
In the electrical industry alone, there are approximately 300 em-
ployers, including ourselves, who are under obligation of Federal law,
in about 1,000 different plants, to recognize and deal exclusively with
the United Electrical Workers. This is one of the unions which has
been re])eatedly accused by congressional committees of Communist
domination, but no authoritatiA^e legal determination has been made
of that fact.
Although UE still gets all the s])ecial protections and exemj^tions
provided by Federal law for loyal trade unions, its position before a
congressional committe only last year was that Communists should
be allowed to be elected to union offices. Before this committee last
week, as before other congressional committees, UE officers have
claimed the fifth amendment's protection against self-incrimination in
refusing to answer questions concerning their alleged Communist
affiliations.
In view of these facts, and others, as we have frequently stated
before, we and large portions of the public have long since come to
believe the repeated and never disproved charges of UE's Communist
leadership.
Despite the long-known existence of Communist-dominated unions,
the Government has, for the most part, refrained from acting as force-
fully with respect to them as it has with respect to other kinds of
Communist organizations.
It seems incredible that the United States Government should order
even defense plant employers to bargain with unions so generally
regarded as Communist dominated. In fact, it is so unbelievable that
the average person, and quite understandably perhaps, may be occa-
sionally led to wonder if employers are dealing with Communist
unions in defiance of the law, rather than because of a compelling legal
obligation.
Mr. Arens. There is a question that I think would help clarify the
situation here. Let me just ask this question : "\^'liy doesn't your com-
pany fire people whom the security agencies have denied clearance
for classified work ?
Mr. BouLWARE. Because they will not tell us. For two reasons:
First, they will not tell us whether the fellow is suspected of Com-
munist connection; and, second, because the Government is obviously,
the security agencies are obviously willing to permit those peonle to
be in the plant in other than classified areas. So who are we, if the
296 suB^^ERSIVE influence in certain labor organizations
Government who is there in charge of the security and the agents are
there in charge of it, as you Iniow, if the Government is there and will-
ing to let them be there officially, we have no defense.
If we go to arbitration, we have no way of proving that the fellow
is an undesirable employee.
Mr. Arens. May the record be clear on this, and let me pose still
another (Question to you, on this point, sir: Don't the Government
agencies, the intelligence ag-encies, tell you, that is, the General Elec-
tric Co., one way or the other whom they regard as subversives or as
security risks?
Mr. BouLWARE. They don't tell us officially. They sometimes — a
minor security agent and minor employees of ours will get friendly
enough for them to kind of indicate that one of these fellows is kind
of bad. But they are not permitted to do it officially. When we say
to them, "AVill you put this on paper so we will have some evidence to
show that this fellow is a bad fellow?" they are not permitted to do
that under the regulations.
We say, "All right, if we go fire them, and say you told us this,"
they will say, "No, you are not allowed to do that."
So we have no support. We have to go in unsupported to claim that
somebody is a bad person.
Mr. Barron. May I amplify that? As we cover later in his testi-
mony, too, the security agencies do of course put in writing the fact
that the man is deemed security risk. But as we all know, the security
risk has a two-pronged aspect: (1) He may be a subversive in the
loyal sense; (2) he may be a security risk because he talks too much,
he drinks too much, or he has other risky connections. They wnll tell
us whether he is a security risk, but they don't go beyond that in terms
of giving us official information. That is the problem we have.
Mr. Arens. Does it throw you off your theme here? I still have
another question on that, if I may, Mr. Boulware and Mr. Barron.
It has been suggested, and some of the legislation currently pending
before the task force provides, that an attempt to solve this problem
could be to preclude the letting of contracts, defense contracts, in
plants where Communist-dominated unions are certified. A^^lat is
your appraisal of that on the basis of your experience ? Are there any
loopholes there?
Senator Butler. Mr. Boulware, before you answer that question,
let me point out to you a specific instance of that situation. If my
understanding is correct, Mr. Carey, the Secretary of the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, has heretofore suggested that wherever you
have known Communists in a defense plant, that you not deny the
right to bargain to the union representing that plant, but that you
pull the contract away from the employer.
Mr. Boulware. We think that is kind of silly.
Senator Buti^er. That is along the line of Mr, Arens' question. I
just bring that to your attention so that when you answ^er the question
you can answer all of the elements of the question.
Mr, Boulware. What we are interested in here is to have your
skilled plants that can make war goods or defense goods, what you
want to do is to have them available.
Senator Butler. I think jNIr. Carey suggested this : That the gov-
ernment itself, through its defense agencies, if it determined that
there were Communists in a defense plant, or that the union repre-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 297
senting that plant was Communist-dominated, that they would have
a meeting at top level, and then withdraw the contract from that
plant. Is that the idea of it?
Mr. Arens. That is the essence of it, as I understand it.
Senator Butler. In other words, he would do administratively
what this legislation would do legislatively.
Mr. BouLWARE. All you would do is please Russia. They would
be happier over that suggestion. If they would infiltrate enough
in a Government-sponsored union, you see, a Government-accredited
union comes in, to have a Government-accredited place, in the kind
of plants that you use for warwork, and then you get into war and
you won't let that plant do any warwork. Nothing could please
Russia so much. The thing you want to do is when you get into
an emergency, you want to have those plants available and the
position we take here is that you ought to get in there and clear
those fellows out of plants not only that are doing current defense
work and not only from just the classified area, but the whole area,
and that you ought to go and do it beyond that, as we subsequently
say in the plants that are most likely to be used in the early stages
of war. Let's don't have a Pearl Harbor attack and then suddenly
say, "Well, we have to clean out half our plants. We cannot use our
most useful, our most technically competent plants."
We ought to have those ready. Our position is that the Govern-
ment ought to stop saying that it is all right for these people to be
represented.
Mr. Arens. Do you mean stop certification of a Communist-
dominated union ?
Mr. BouLWARE. Yes. We feel that they ought not to certify a
Communist-dominated union.
Furthermore, as we will say here later, they ought not to permit
in a plant currently doing defense work, or in a plant likely to do
it in the early stages of an emergency, you ought not to permit
individual subversives in there. You ought to clean them out ahead
of time.
Mr. Arens. Even in the non- or anti-Communist unions ?
Mr. BouLWARE. That is right. Because you cannot tell. You take
any kind of sizable plant. You may have your defense confined to
one area, but if the load comes on you suddenly from an emergency,
you may have to spread out, throw your civilian work out and spread
out all over. Our work force in being, and skill and knowledge of
your machines and work and all, they ought to be there and available
to take on the defense activity.
Mr. Arens. Wliat do you think of this suggestion that was made
to the committee just the other day : The theme was that after all
this is not any business of the Government of the United States, it is
a squabble between the employers and the labor organizations, and
within the labor organizations among the Communists and non-
Communists and the Government ought to stay out entirely. What
is your reaction to that ?
^Ir. BouLWARE. I think the first duty of the Government is to pro-
tect itself. The first law of life is self-protection, and the Govern-
ment's objective is to catch spies.
Mr. Arens. Cannot the employer solve this problem without legis-
lation, or cannot this problem be solved without legislation?
298 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. BouLWARE. We don't see how because you have had 20 or 25
years in which the unions have not been able to purge themselves
of it from within, and when they do purge themselves, someone
purges themselves from within, they go over and start up again and
flourish, as they are doing now. We think it is completely improbable
for the Government to present this kind of situation to our employees.
They come out there with an array of unions from which they may
select, each one of them they are going to put on the ballot, each
one Government accredited, as a person who can represent them.
And whichever one of these is selected, the Government will say,
"Then we will certify it to you as the union with which you may
properly deal."
And an employer steps into that situation and says, "No, now you
go on. You have some special interest in this, you don't like an effec-
tive local union fellow."
The Govermnent says this is all right and they are the people who
are in charge of the spy business.
Mr. Arexs. So they use the Government endorsement of an agency
but they don't want the Government condenniation of a Connnunist
agency ; is that about the sum and substance of it %
Mr. BouLWARE. That is about right.
Mr. Arens. May I ask you this, Mr. Boulware, under the present
law and practices, if the Internal Security Subcommittee brings
before it 2 or 3 people who use tlie fifth amendment and who are before
the committee repeatedly identified by live witnesses as known Com-
munists, is your company permitted to fire them?
Mr. Boulware. We fire anyone — we suspend anyone who takes
refuge behind the fifth amendment in connection with Communist
questions, and we suspend him for 90 days with pay. If he doesn't
change his mind and won't come back before a committee and decide to
talk and testify fully and clear himself, he is discharged.
JVIr. Arens. What is the shortcoming of that practice to accomplish
the job that needs to be done, in your oi)inion ?
Mr. Boulware. Well, you don't get your hands on anybody except
somebody that has come out and so publicly cast such additional suspi-
cion on himself and such additional embarrassment on us as to make
him an undesirable employee to the degree that we feel we would have
very obviously the right to say we don't want him on our payroll.
Senator Butler. And in addition to that, in most cases you have no
concerted action among employers, generally, in handling that
situation ?
Mr. Boulware. Well, I don't know that it would do anybody any
good. Mr. Barron prompts me here. Our biggest problem is with
people who are not on our payroll, the leaders who do not work for
the company.
Senator Butler. But really dominate what goes on?
Mr. Boulware. Yes, indeed. You have had before you here at
least three of the top officers this year, and in previous years, of one
of these organizations, and they took refuge behind the fifth amend-
ment. Yet they are not on our payroll. Two of them, I think, have
never been.
Senator Butler. As a matter of fact, they are not on any company
payroll ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 299
Mr. BouLWARE. I know it. Just on our employees' payroll.
Mr. Arens. What is your reaction to the suggestion that is repeat-
edly made by these Communist-controlled organizations masquerading
as labor unions that after all this whole subcommittee and its proposed
legislation is just union busting, witch hunting, Ked baiting, that
our motives are to destroy labor organizations? Would this help
labor organizations or would it hurt them to oust the Communists?
Mr. BouLWARE. We cannot certify to your sterling qualities, but we
think you are on the right track here, because we think that what you
are proposing, the direction you are going, will help employees and
the country liave good labor unions and effective labor unions, because
this is not directed against labor unions, this is directed against the
employees having the Government sanction their having spies within
the leadership which you, the Government, are endorsing, practically,
you see. xVU you are doing is saying to your employees, who are not
professionals in this matter, that we are going to see that of the unions
that come seeking to serve you, they are going to be free of Communist
domination, so far as the Government is competent to catch them.
Senator Butler. And these leaders of the Communist-dominated
unions use that propaganda very extensively, do they not, to keep
their membership in line ?
]Mr. Boulware. They are endorsed by the United States Govern-
ment.
?,Ir. Arens. Pardon the interruption, Mr. Boulware, and proceed.
Mr. Boulware. That is all right. We are interested in what you are
interested in.
We believe the first duty of any security legislation is to see that
the Government shall : First, clear the air authoritatively and
definitely as to who are, in fact. Communist union leaders ; and, second,
prohibit such union leaders from functioning in any way as the
bargaining representative of any employees.
Until Congress effectively shoulders this responsibility, the ama-
teurs, the volunteers, and others — some of them for selfish purposes,
we think some don't want this matter cleared up, but most with the
very best good will, but lacking the needed professional skill — will
feel called on to continue and even increase their efforts to deal with
the problem outside the law.
INIr. Arens. Could I pose a question to you here, which I think is
self-authenticating. It is obviously true, is it not, that the employ-
ing organizations and the public at large do not have access to the
intelligence information which is available to the Government?
Mr. Boulware. That is right. And presumably for many reasons,
and some of them very good. But they do not have access to it.
Mr. Arens. They do not have the investigating facilities of the
Government.
Mr. Boulware. No. The Government has the authoritative infor-
mation, and has the only authority, also, to use it. It is still ap-
parently legal to be a Communist in this country and it is still ap-
parently legal for a fellow to operate in a union with Communist
influence.
Senator Butler. Mr. Boulware, is it reasonable to believe, in your
opinion, that when the Congress of Industrial Organizations ejected
UE and in efl'ect labeled UE, that they had positive proof in their
possession that UE was Communist-dominated?
300 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. BouLWARE. Well, they have so testified, the officers have so testi-
fied, that they had it as long as 10 years before.
Senator Butler. That they had absohite and positive proof of Com-
munist-domination ?
Mr. BouLWARE. Yes, that is in the testimony Last year.
Mr. Barron. As I understand the basis upon Avhich they proceeded
with respect to the unions whom they expelled, if I recall the ultimate
question found was that these particular unions had consistently fol-
lowed the Communist Party line over a long period of time. For that
purpose, they relied on the various flip-flops in policy going back as
far as 1939 and 1940, which were manifest in the union publications.
I may be wrong in this, but my recollection is that they really found
the fact that these had consistently followed the Communist Party
line. They did not, however, go so far as to say that Mr. X and JSIr. Y
and Mr. Z, who are the leaders, "We know, or we find, Communists.'*
Senator Butler. The reason I ask that question is because Mr.
Boulware, in his statement said, "First the Government should clear
the air authoritatively and definitely as to who are in fact Communist
union leaders." Has there ever been any testimony on the record
from the Congress of Industrial Organizations or from other sources
that these particular men are Communist union leaders ?
Mr. Barron. To my knowledge, the answer to that question is "No."
Senator Butler. Other than the proceedings of this and other
committees of the Congress. But the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations itself did not attack it from that standpoint. It attacked it
from the standpoint of "You shall know them by their fruits."
In other words, "They have always served the Communist cause,
and therefore we believe them to be Communists" ; right ?
Mr. Barron. That is my understanding.
Mr. Boulware. Can I go off the record a minute ?
Senator Butler. Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Butler. Mr. Boulware, will you proceed with your state-
ment ?
Mr. Boulware. For too long now it has apparently been considered
too difficult or politically dangerous to adopt legislation aimed at
effectively and thoroughly eliminating Communists from union lead-
ership. We believe that the vast body of loyal American union
members, and leaders, we think, too, will overwhelmingly support any
fair legislation which will help them resolve this problem and really
clean house.
Senator Butler. Let me say here it certainly is the intention of the
chairman of this task force to do just exactly that. I never will con-
sciously hurt labor as long as I am in the United States Senate and
I am not going to hurt industry. But this is a problem in my opinion
that has a very grave overriding public interest in it and I think we
have to face up to the fact, and I will welcome the support of industry
and labor or anybody else that can help us solve what I deem to be a
very grave problem in the security situation in America today.
Mr. Boulware. I certainly congratulate you on that, because any-
body interested in union members, having good unions, and in union
leaders having a good opportunity in which to operate should be
interested and I think are interested in this same thing.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 301
Senator Butler. I hope if they are not at this time, that we can
arouse their interest.
Mr. BouLWARE. I am sure you can.
Senator Butler. If these hearings do nothing more but to arouse
the interest of men of good will in both labor and industry, and will
fall in behind the fellow who has no animosity toward anybody and
is only trying to do a decent job for their country, I will welcome
their support.
Mr. BouLwARE. Right. But in devising legislation, we think the
duty of the Government to expose and identify Communists should
not be delegated or left to private citizens.
An emploj'er certainly should not have the right to decide that he
will not recognize a union chosen by his employees because he believes
that union is Communist dominated. Employees, the public and the
courts would suspect that such a power might be abused- — deliberately
or through wishful thinking — to get rid of effective union leaders.
The basic principle of both the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts is to
guarantee that employees — and not employers — will choose the union
to be bargained with.
We still think that those they have an opportunity to choose ought
to be within a group that the Government is willing to certify
Senator Butler. To certify as being loyal Americans ?
Mr. Boulware. That is riglit. The same reasons should properly
prevent union leaders from having the power to authoritatively decide
when a rival union official is a Communist. Internal union politics
often get pretty bitter and the power to brand a rival as a Connnunist
might likewise be abused — deliberately or through wishful thinking.
I think, besides, experience proves that in too many cases unions just
don't get purged from within. You have cited some cases here this
morning. Then there is the problem of individual subversives. We
believe there is also an immediate and urgent need that Congress
reexamine its policy with respect to individual subversives in industry.
There is no policy now in effect which prevents subversives known to
Government agencies from working on nonclassified or civilian work
in plants which are doing defense work or which would be vital to the
defense of the United States in the early stages of a war.
We think it is something that might distantly be used and you
might not be so anxious to exclude that ahead of time. But certainly
something that ought to be called in right quick in the event of war,
ought to be ready.
Mr. Arens. Could you tell us in general, right there, Mr. Boulware,
what defense contracts GE has. and whether or not GE is engaged in
the production of any material which is classified ?
INIr. Boulware. I can tell you tliat last year almost a third of our
business was in the defense area. I cannot tell you what the portion
of that is classified. I just don't know, but a great deal of it is, cer-
tainly, in the electronics field and in the airplane jet engine field.
Mr. Arens. Witli whom do you bargain ?
Mr. Boulware. We bargain with 90 unions, covering that area, one
of whom is UE.
Mr. Arens. What percentage of your work is handled by UE or
people who are members of UE ?
Mr. Boulware. The defense work or the regular work?
43903—54 20
302 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
]Mr. Arens. Both, if you have it.
Mr. BouLWARE. I think it is about— there are 40,000 out of 240,000
employees that are bargained for. That is roughly the percentage.
About one-sixth of our employees are bargained for by UE.
Mr. Arens. May I ask you this? Of the 40,000 employees of GE,
who are bargained for by UE, what percentage of that 40,000 are en-
gaged on defense contracts?
Mr. BouLWARE. Was it seven or eight thousand?
Mr. Barron. It is in the testimony of about a year ago when we
tried to do a computation on that, and a computation is difficult to
make because of the way it is scattered. But my recollection is that
there was about five or six thousand out of the group, five, six, or seven
thousand. That is only a recollection.
Mr. BouLWARE. You get into a hazy area. Our trouble is in
identifying.
Mr. Arens. Do you have any estimate to make as to the number of
people who are bargained for by UE who are now engaged in re-
?tricted, secret, classified defense work?
i\Ir. BouLWARE. Not very many of them. There are some at
Sclienectady.
]\Ir. Barron. There are 3 or 4 other plants.
]Mr. BouLWARE. It is a relatively small number of them, keeping
in mind that every one of them is checked and passed individually
by a (xovernment agency, regardless of his union affiliation before he
is permitted to work on classified work, the individual is.
jMr. Arens. On the basis of your background and experience, do
you have any appraisal to make for this subcommittee of the potential
for sabotage or espionage or political slowdowns or work stoppages
in the event of an armed conflict or a war in which this country would
have to engage?
Mr. BouLWARE. On espionage we think the danger is limited
severely, keeping in mind that any danger is too much in such a case,
but the clanger is very limited due to the high subdivision of the work,
that the hourly worker works on in the plant. Our great danger in
espionage is with the engineer who is characteristically not in the
bargaining unit but who has the overall perspective and can tell some-
body how to make the whole device, whereas he would only be work-
ing on a bent pin for his part, the worker. But the sabotage is a dif-
ferent mattei'.
Senator Butler. Let me ask you this: Do you have the shop
steward system in your plants?
Mr. B0U1.WAEE. Yes.
Senator Butler. Does that pose any security risk, in your opinion?
Mr. BouLWARE. We think it poses some, but again it is minimized
because the employees are loyal people. You just would have to limit
a long time to find any bad people among the hourly employees. I
mean the incidence is so small that
Senator Butler. We have had some testimony before this subcom-
mittee indicating that the shop steward system is pretty widely used
by the Communist dominated union and they elect the shop steward
and he has a pretty free hand in the plant and can go into restricted
areas where the ordinary worker could not go.
Mr. BouTAVARE. No, as to where he can go, he is just as rigidly
limited as anyone. He cannot go in there unless he, too, is cleared.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 303
And there is always danger there, and we are saying any danger is
too much. But I don't think we should get it out of proportion.
Senator Butler. I am very happy to get this testimony. Let me
ask you another question along that line. Does the shop steward have
any access to the original drawings and specifications 'i
Mr. BouLWAKE. No, not any more than he would have in any other
case. Somebody has to break his security vows. I mean some em-
ployee has to do it to show it to him or give it to him. The worst
cases we have had in the country, of course, have been outside the
unions rather than in.
Senator Bui^ler. Does he have any right to demand how many peo-
ple are working on what and when and why ?
Mr. BouLWARE. He would know that, that is, he would know how
many people were working on what pieces. But the thing I am trying
to clarify and perhaps be working a little against what I am advocat-
ing, but I would like to keep the thing in proper perspective.
Senator Butler. That is what I want to do. I want to get it riaht
on this record.
Mr. BouLWARE. That is that the steward has no automatic access to
secrets and to overall designs and things of that kind by virtue of his
access to the hourlv
Senator Butler. So in your opinion the threat posed by the steward
system is no more than the threat posed by any other kind of a system
in the plant '!
Mr. Boulware. You see, the security agents examine the stewards in
the Commie suspected union areas, and in the nonunion areas. They
give exactly the same kind of scrutiny to it. Wliile we think that a bad
intent on anybody's part increases that hazard, and we are against it,
all I am trying to say is I don't think we should, in fairness, magnify
it. In your esi)ionage area, your great hazard is the engineer who has
a perspective of the whole design and can transmit it.
Mr. Arens, How about sabotage ?
Mr. Boulware. Sabotage is a diiferent thing. If you have an army
standing there that you think will act instantly and unthinkingly in
response to a union's action, you have a hazard. Again, your only
relieving factor is that your employees are in the main, loyal Ameri-
cans, and they hear all this talk about these fellows and they would be
quite suspicious of their efforts to stir up trouble.
During this Korean affair, the leaders in UE and elsewhere have had
a surprising number of refusals to respond to calls to come out when
the employees did not think they were serious.
Mr. Arens. Wliat is the situation with reference to the labor organi-
zation officials? Do they under the contract have a right to come
into the plant and talk to the workers ?
Mr. Boulware. They will come to an office designated for that place,
but they again have to be cleared for the places to which they can go
or not. You have a security system that is operated in accordance
with the instructions we get from Government security agents on the
ground.
Senator Butler. Is your security check equally applicable to any
management people ?
Mr. Boulware. Yes. They all have to be cleared to go in there.
I carry a Q clearance myself. The people that have access to classified
areas have to be cleared by the Government to have that access.
304 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Barron. I might say that one limiting factor that is not often
appreciated with reference to security clearance, is, as I understand
security practices, a security clearance, let us say for confidential,
does not entitle a worker or a steward to go around and see any kind
of confidential work that is going on in the plant. That clearance
entitles that man to see such or use such confidential material as is
necessary for him to discharge his particular job, so that that in itself
is a limiting factor as to what your stewards or your other people
whoever have, even if they are cleared. I think that that factor is
sometimes overlooked in appraising the problem.
Mr. Arens. Did the thought ever cross your mind. Mr. Boulware,
that it is rather an anomalous situation for 40,000 people to be em-
ployed, earning their daily bread working on defense contracts for the
defense of this Government, and then periodically, regularly, turning
over part of that money which they have earned producing defense
material for this Government to an agency which has been found, by
other congressional committees, to be Communist-controlled, Com-
munist-dominated, and serving in the interests of the Kremlin.
Mr. Boulware. We certainly do think it is peculiar and absurd, and
for an additional reason. Money being paid by loyal employees into
a representative that is going to use it for bad purposes, not only infers
that they might have some control back on what those employees may
do, but the thing we don't like above all else is the possibility of a
Communist organization being financed in the community and making
their investment ahead in contacts with all kinds of people around the
neighborhood whom they may have lulled to repose, or may have
gotten something on, and whom they can use when the time comes,
and when some (Tovernment project comes into a town at a plant you
might not even think was going to work on this thing.
Mr. Arens. How much does the UE Communist -controlled leader-
ship siphon off there from those people every month or every year?
Do you know?
Mr. Boulware. I think it is $2.50 a month. It may be up to $3. I
think it is still $2.50 a month. So that is $100,000 a month.
Mr. Arens. That is over a million dollars a year that UE is taking
out of the pockets of the workers ?
Mr. Boulware. There is another lessening factor here, and that is,
that only about two-thirds of them are members of UE. There are
forty-thousand-odd they bargain for but only about two-thirds of
them are members and check off the dues. But three-quarters of a
million would be too much.
Senator Butler. In other words, $750,000 is going from the pockets
of loyal workers into the work of the Communist apparatus.
Mr. Arens. That would run the Internal Security Subcommittee for
several years.
Mr. B0U1.WARE. A question like that, we think, ought to be settled
for the employees. The Government is now in a position of outwardly
endorsing this process, you see. Under the present individual se-
curity program. Government agencies direct contractors to exclude
from "classified" defense work all employees whom they find to be
"security risks," but the individual employer does not receive from
the Government the evidence which supports its conclusion. The
individual employer, therefore, cannot establish whether the employee
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 305
is regarded as a subversive or as a "security risk" for reasons not
related currently to disloyalty.
Defense contractors, like the General Electric Co., under such cir-
cumstances, comply with the security regulations by insuring that a
designated "security risk" does not work upon, and does not have
access to, "classified" Government information. But under this in-
adequate procedure, some employees, who are deemed by the Govern-
ment to be "subversives" in the genuine sense of the word and are under
Government surveillance as such, are permitted to remain in areas of
that critical plant where they do not have access to "classified" work.
We have long been dissatisfied with a security program which did
not advise us which of our employees the Government considered
genuine subversives as opposed to those which it considered "security
risks" in the less dangerous sense. Upon the outbreak of the Korean
war, we unsuccessfully attempted to have the Government provide us,
and we applied in writing for the names of and information concern-
ing, any of our employees considered to be subversive. We could not
get such information and were advised that the entire security pro-
graiu was under study.
INIr. Arens. When you say the Government •
Mr. BouLWARE. We wrote to the Attorney General and to the
Defense Department.
Mr. Arens. Does the Defense Department have men actually on
the plant that operate the security program or is that operated by one
of the intelligence agencies?
Mr. BouLWARE, No ; it is normally — it is by the arm of the service
that has the major interest in that particular plant, the Army, the
Navy, the Air Force. The FBI is in the background, and we even
know some of them that come to the plant openly. We suspect that
there are more. In fact, at the bargaining table, we run a pool on
which one of the UE representatives are the FBI men. We recom-
mended to the Government security agencies that, since we did not
have access to the evidence in their files, they at least should determine
and direct when an employee should be excluded from unclassified
civilian work, as well as from classified military work. This recom-
mendation also was rejected.
Last year, as an interim measure, pending more adequate Govern-
ment regulation, we adopted a policy we believed necessary to solve
the problem, at least in part. This policy calls for the ultimate dis-
charge of any employee who invokes the fifth amendment ni refusing
to answer questions concerning Communist affiliations before a gov-
ernmental authority. The policy provides for suspension for 90 days,
with pay, during which time the employee may be cleared and rein-
stated by answering fully under oath all questions asked him by a
governmental authority concerning espionage, sabotage, and the em-
ployee's Communist affiliations. He may also be cleared if he is able
to secure a certification from a Government agency that there is no
evidence indicating he is a substantial risk for employment.
But there is no machinery today for doing this, other than going
and finding a Government committee to come back before. None of
them have sought that. Our plan is deficient in that respect. In
adopting this policy, we recognized that it was not a complete solu-
tion to the problem of possible subversives in our plants. However,
we felt obligated to our employees, share owners, and the public to
306 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
utilize it until the Government adopts measures to adequately cope
with the problem.
Defense Department representatives who supervise the Govern-
ment's security programs at our plants, and our own security officers
can be proud that not a single one of the 17 employees suspended
under General Electric's policy had been given clearance or worked
on a classified job. That security problems exist regardless of union
affiliations is indicated by the following:
Of the 17 suspended employees, 8 were UE members. 1 was a mem-
ber of an AFL plumbers' union, 1 was a member of AFL draftsmen's
union, 5 were lUE (CIO) membei-s and 2 more were represented by
lUE although apparently not members.
We believe genuine subversives should be barred from all work in a
plant needed for national defense. At present the policy of the
Government is not to bar either subversives or the lesser kinds of
security risks so long as they do not have access to classified work. We
believe the current policy of merely having known subversives kept
under FBI surveillance is fraught with great danger.
We understand that you keep a list of them, and with the paper:^
all drawn and ready to serve the minute war is declared. But we
think that is too late. It could be in many of our operations. We
think Congress must now determine whether the present, limited kind
of a security program is adequate and if not, what additional measures
Govermuent agencies and defense contractors will be empowered to
adopt.
As to Communist domination of unions, we believe that the princi-
ples necessary in any legislation are as follows :
1. There should be official Government investigation and identifi-
cation of unions and union leaders alleged to be Commimist domi-
nated. This legislation should be directed against individuals and
not against unions. Even in those unions believed to be clearly Com-
munist dominated, 99 percent of the membership we believe is loyal,
and maybe a lot more. The rank and file, therefore, should, under
any legislation adopted, be given the opportunity and provided the
incentive for purging the Communist leaders and replacing them with
loyal union officials, all in accordance with official information that is
reliable, and from an independent, authoritative, objective depart-
ment who has not other business.
2. The legislation must establish sound criteria pursuant to which
the applicable Government agency could determine whether a union
is Communist dominated. This is by all means the most difficult pai-t
of the task. The criteria must be so established that it will lead with
certainty to the conviction of the guilty and acquittal of the innocent.
3. Wliile the greatest procedural protections should be afforded any
accused individual or union, the law should legally prohibit a Com-
munist labor leader or a Communist-dominated union from continu-
ing to function as a representative of employees for collective bar-
gaining. It will not be sufficient merely to withdraw the legal as-
sistance now given such unions by Federal law.
Mr. Arens. In other words, you think there should be an amend-
ment, say, to the Clayton Act and to some of the other collateral legis-
lation dealing with labor organizations, is that correct ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 307
Mr. Barron. I don't think you need to do it by way of amendment,
if I understand S. 1254. S. 1254 attempts to do it just within its own
terms.
Mr. BouLWARE. Again in this phase of the problem, the primary
consideration is to guarantee fairness while insuring professional com-
petence in determining whether a given individual is a genuine sub-
versive so as to justify his exclusion from employment in critical
defense plants.
We believe all employees in plants now doing defense work and
other plants which would have to be immediately converted to defense
work in time of war, should be subject to investigation by Govern-
ment security agencies. If the Government finds that they are the
kind of subversives who would be seized and detained by the Attorney
General under the present emergency detention law, the agency
should direct their discharge. We see no justification for allowing
such known subversives to continue to have access to plants which
they could damage irreparably in the first few hours of a war
emergency.
As to specific recommendations, I suggest Mr. Barron resume.
Mr. Barron. We have set forth a few of our comments with re-
spect to the three bills which you have. I won't try to stick too
close to the text, because you have already given us so much of your
time. We do indicate, however, that we believe that there is a need
for a statute which incorporates at least the principles if not the
precise language in which it now stands, in S. 1254. We do have
a few suggestions to make with respect to it. We recommend that
section 6 (b) be reexamined very carefully, and with such assistance
as you can secure from loyal trade union officials or their attorneys.
Section 6, of course, sets up the criteria for determining when a par-
ticular person is Communist dominated. We believe that the effort
should be a genuine, extensive, wholehearted one to establish cri-
teria which would not mistakenly cover loyal persons, no matter how
radical or distasteful their political and economic views might be. We
are only after Communists, we are not trying to go after left-wing
radicals or others.
It is a question of loyalty, solely. We think section 6 could possibly
be tightened up in that respect.
Under section 6 (a) (1), we do suggest, however, that there is need
for moving the critical date back from January 1949 to January 1,
1947. As it is now drafted, only membership in the Communist Party
would be deemed significant if it was subsequent to January 1, 1949.
We have this opinion because it is so well known that many Communist
leaders have followed the technique of resigning formal membership
in the Communist Party in order to file a Taft-Hartley affidavit.
Mr. Arens. Could I ask you a question right there. Counsel ? Do
you have any suggestion to make to the committee on a definition of
membership? Frankly I say that as an individual that has troubled
me, as to what is membership, because we know that the Communists
no longer carry cards, we know they are masters at deceit, we know
that the membership has thus far had — it was almost a term of art
which probably could be easily circumvented by those who want to
do so.
Mr. Barron. No, I don't have any suggestion for that, and I think
that if any attempt were made to define membership, the whole history
308 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
of the Communist Party, if you strait jacket the definition, the whole
history of the Communist Party means that they will find ways of
evading and avoiding a straight, tight definition.
Senator Butler. In other words, it is like a court of equity will
never define fraud, because those who would practice it would then
know how to avoid it.
Mr. Barron. There are all sorts of various means and devices by
which it can be avoided, sure.
Mr. Aeens. I was thinking in terms along this line, and I would
like to have the benefit of vour views on it, that we would not undertake
to define membership as such, but we will say that in ascertaining
whether or not a person is a member, we can take into account whether
or not he is, say, under the disciple of the Communist Party, whether
he takes orders from any one of a number of criteria, which probably
could be used in determining wliether or not Mr. X is a member, be-
cause Mr. X will say, "I am not a member. I associate with people
who are Communists, I take orders from them," and we can prove a lot
of things but we might not be able to prove membership. I am very
fearful that we have an issue there that needs a good deal of
exploration.
Mr. Barron. I don't think you can make the test membership, and
I certainly agree with your approach. That is why we believe that
the Goldwater approach is also sound. If I understand it correctly,
that is the approach that it takes. It is the same approach, as I under-
stand it, that the Internal Security Act presently takes. You conduct
hearings, you take evidence as to the total of the circumstances which
is going to lead to one final, informed judgment. That final- informed
judgment, under the present Security Act is subject to judicial re-
view. It is the same process that we have always used in any of our
legal proceedings in resolving very difficult questions of fact.
Mr. Arens. For that reason we have to have certain criteria in the
law upon which we ascertain who is and who is not within this cate-
gory that we regard as subversives.
Mr. Barron. They are guideposts, guideposts which are very defi-
nitely needed.
We do think that the Goldwater bill contains clear and deserved
protections to unions and individuals against trumped-up or flimsy
charges of Communist domination by allowing charges to be brought
only by the Attorney General rather than by private persons.
Senator Butler. JDo you think it would be any improvement, Mr.
Barron, and not to keep it so restrictive, to let the attorney general
of any State or the Attorney General of the United States bring the
charges? I know in the State of Maryland, for instance, we have
what we call the Ober law, and we have an assistant attorney general
assigned to looking into subversion. That is his only duty. If he
finds a subversive activity, would it be proper to permit the attorney
general of a State to prefer the charge ?
In other words, the State would have the right to do it, or the
Federal Government would have the right.
Mr. Barron. I had not really thought that question out. Senator,
but my first reaction is that this problem is so clearly related to the
domination of a union which is certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, it comes under the auspices of the Federal Government.
It goes to the employees, let us say, with the tacit approval, at least.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE EST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 309
of the Federal Government. It seems to me that the same relation-
ship should be followed.
Senator Butler. I am certainly not wedded to one or the other.
But I want to do with this bill what the consensus shows should be
done by both labor and management.
Mr. Arens. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, so I understand, any in-
dividual can bring a charge, but his charge must be substantiated
within so many hours, 72 hours or thereabouts. Would you look
with favor
Mr. Barron. Do you mean an unfair labor practice charge, are
you speaking of?
Mr. Arens. I understand so.
Mr. Barron". Individuals may bring unfair labor practice charge.
I don't recall the 72-hour limitation that you are speaking of.
Mr. Arens. Perhaps it is administratively invoked or administra-
tive policy. I was wondering why you would make a distinction
between a charge which would be brought under this proposed legis-
lation from a charge which could be brought by any person under,
say, the Taft-Hartley Act or comparable legislation.
Mr. Barron. The thing that really bothers me, and I think we
have to be realistic at looldng at this Communist problem, and appre-
ciate the problems that the loyal trade-union leaders do have, is this
charge of Communist and Communist domination has been hurled
about for 20 years now. The charges have created large confusion,
and, as we commented earlier, in internal politics, the charge of Com-
munist domination is frequently used for purposes of serving indi-
viduals' personal gains. Consequently, the whole history of the
thing makes it difficult to open the door for rival political leaders to
use this charge of Connnunist domination as a political tool to gain
union office.
At least, it strikes us in that way. That is why we think that there
is some protection against that problem.
Senator Bui^ler. And it may tend to keep the whole situation in
such a ferment that you would never have any real good relations
between labor and management.
Mr. Barron. The Attorney General is the one, of course, who
through the FBI and access to the other Defense Department agencies,
can make the initial determination as he does now as to who are sub-
versive organizations. He can resolve and separate the really substan-
tial charges from the flimsy ones or those which are made for political
purposes. It strikes us that is a very salutary, fair, and proper
approach to the problem.
Mr. Arens. Is there anybody else in addition to the Attorney Gen-
eral who you think might be embraced in this category ? This thing
that troubles me on this, if I may suggest it, is that the Attorney
General, without speaking of any individual, of course, the Attorney
General might be ill-disposed to carry on a campaign against Conmui-
nists or Communist-dominated labor organizations. I know some
criticism has been leveled in times past under the Taft-Hartley Act,
that there were no vigorous prosecutions.
Mr. Boulware. It did not seem to be good politics.
Mr. Arens. Yes. I was just Avondering if there could not be an
enlargement of tliis category where we strike a happy medium so that
we wouldn't encompass everyone and open up the door to all kinds of
310 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
crackpots and at the same time have enough responsible peo])le
embraced that could bring the charges so that the public could be
protected against a lazy or a politically minded attorney general who
might not see things as he ought to see them.
Mr. BouLWARE. Spies are
Mr. Arexs. I am not talking about any one individual, of course.
Mr. BouLWARE. Spies are a Federal matter, and I always hate to
head anything toward the Federal Government, because I am a
States righter. But it seems to me if you could find a Federal agency,
with some decentralization on it and not so critical from a political
standpoint, it might be the thing that would be helpful. I have noth-
ing to suggest.
Senator Butler. You are dealing here with a right very close to the
people. I think if we could make a start, maybe the Attorney General
is the man who ought to do it. If it doesn't turn out that the bill is
well administered, then Ave can think of something else. But it would
seem to me that we have to protect the rights of everybody and have
people satisfied that the law is making an honest effort to get at com-
munism rather than to get at any particular union or any particular
labor organization.
jNIr. Barrg^t. I would differ just a little bit, Mr. Arens, with your
approach. I think that just as a matter of pure, let us say political
theory, I don't think we should get so excited about this problem that
we ignore the facts that we do put great trust in the Attorney General,
and we charge him with responsibility for enforcing a vast variety of
laws, despite the fact that he personally might have some questions
about enforcement, murder laws, antitrust laws, and so forth.
And I don't think we get too concerned about putting that respon-
sibility into his hand and try to get public informers or public accusers
to bring the charges.
Moreover, I think that some of the unions wdiich have so opposed
this might ultimately be persuaded.
Senator Butler. That is the big point. What I want to do, if we
can possibly do it, is to arrive at a solution of this problem that would
have the sanction of organized labor and of the management. I hope
that can be done. I think there is an area here that agreement can be
reached on if it can be protected, in a way to protect the rights of
everybody.
Mr. Boulware. That may be a little hard, but we certainly all hope
for it. If it cannot be obtained at the present time, I think we ought
to look back — —
Senator Butler. At least make a start.
Mr. Boulware. We ought to look back at our own experience. We
in business got our come-uppance about 60 years ago when we had
been doing pretty well with all kinds of favorable laws and had gotten
to a point where we were running a little roughshod, and we got
operated on with the antitrust laws, and then as affairs of a long suc-
cession of laws which were proved to be awful good for business and
awful good for businessmen and awful good for the public in general,
despite the fact that the worst offenders, of course, did a lot of pro-
testing at the time, and a lot of people felt that tliey did not want this
invasion into the area.
I think the unions have been favored, and particularly the upper
union officials have been favored, with very favorable laws aiding their
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 311
organization and growth. I think they have gotten to the point now
where they are not infant industries like business was 60 years ago,
and I think there is going to be some reluctance in the early stages to
accept some of the body of regulation that is bound to come for power-
ful agencies. For that reason, I think that the reconciliation to labor
laws regulating unions will come, maybe, with time and experience for
the top people in the unions, just like it has come to the top people
in business. Nobody in his right mind in business today would object
to the antitrust laws, we are all for them. But there was a time when
we kind of bristled a little at the idea of this invasion of our field.
Mr. Barron. We note also on the bottom of page 12 there is a pro-
vision in the Goldwater bill which is really taken over from the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act itself which we think might be helpful.
This is the rather traditional provision that a witness may be called
in and investigation done under the statute and would not be privi-
leged to invoke his self-incrimination protection under the fifth
amendment, but he would be given immunity with respect to any mat-
ter about which he was compelled to testify. We think this might be
helpful in getting the minor witnesses, through the process of giving
them immunity to come forward and identify the really major leaders
that you would really like to get information about.
We also believe that there is a provision in the Goldwater bill which
is a provision which would be very helpful in persuading the public
that this is not a union-busting program, and we refer to rather ex-
press provisions contained in there which would not injure any union
if it decided to reorganize itself from within and to really clean
house. Under the provisions of that Goldwater bill» this should show
to employees and tlie public that the bill is not a union-busting pro-
gram, it is really a program designed for the benefit of the rank-and-
file workers. On the other hand, we do not believe that S. 1606, Sen-
ator Butler's bill, goes far enough in imposing the penalties which
would ensue. The only penalty imposed by that bill is that a union
loses its protection under the Labor Management Relations Act to re-
ceive a certification. We note on page 13, we state, you undoubtedly
know that many iniions found it possible to prosper after 1917 with-
out having access to the Labor-]\ranao:ement Relations Act at all.
In our own company ^e and our employees suffered two rather
long and costly strikes called by the UE during the time that that
union was refusing to file a non-Communist affidavit. Those strikes
were called by UE simply because we refused to recognize it without
an NLRB certification even though it apparently represented a major-
ity of the employees in each of the two struck plants.
We therefore feel that all you do is to take away the protection
under the National Labor Relations Act.
Many of the unions, for example, John L. Lewis' union, which is
only illustrative of the point I am making and not illustrative of Com-
munist-dominated unions, many unions will find it possible or at least
attempt to operate outside of the Labor Management Relations Acr.
Therefore we feel that the other provisions of the Goldwater bill,
which would deny those benefits given to loyal trade unions, should
also be taken from them.
We also note in our statement some endorsement of the recent pro-
posal made to you by IMr. Stone of the American Cable & Radio Cor]:).
We think that possibly, using the affidavit form in somewhat the na-
312 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Lure suggested by Mr. Stone, with some refinements we have noted in
our testimony, it could do much to take care of the short, immediate
problems of really identifying the Communist-dominated imions,
whereas you could rely on the lengthier, more time-consuming provi-
sions of the Goldwater bill to really go after the really entrenched,
strong unions who elected to exist outside of the Labor Management
Relations Act. We think there is some merit in considering the affi-
davit approach, together with the Goldw^ater bill, one for the short-
run approach, and the second for the long-run approach.
Coming to the problem of individual subversives, the only bill that
we find before you which appears to point in this direction is Senator
McCarran's bill, S. 23. It apparently recognizes the need for some
further corrective action in the direction Mr. Boulware has indicated
by his prior statement, particularly section 2 (d). At the bottom of
page 16, we state that section 2 (d) of S. 23 is apparently conceived
with the idea that individual employers should be immunized from
liability for discharging employees for the reasons enumerated in that
section, that is, for discharging employees who are members of an
organization listed as subversive and employees who have actively
concealed membership in such an organization or employees wdio
refuse to tell a congressional committee whether they have knowingly
or willingly been a member of such an organization. We don't think
that that provision adds anything to the present state of the law, for
the reason that it merely recites that nothing in this act, or any other
statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from dis-
charging an employee for those reasons. As we have already indi-
cated, General Electric has a policy, leading to the ultimate discharge
of emjiloyees who persist in invoking the fifth amendment before
congressional committees.
Mr. Arens. Could 1 interpose a question there? I think it was
designed in this S. 23 to protect the employer who may be caught by
one of these contracts wdiich, in effect, precludes him from discharging
a Communist, the contract which enmnerates the reasons for which
an employee can be discharged.
Mr. JBarron. If that is the purpose of S. 23, it does not so read, be-
cause it doesn't say that anything in any collective-bargaining agree-
ment shall preclude an employer from discharging. As witnesses pre-
viously have testified, many arbitrators are going to look over em-
ployers- shoulders very carefully and very suspiciously witli respect to
the kind of evidence that they can adduce, leading in the direction to
establishing Communist membership.
Mr. Arens. It says "Nothing in this act or any other statute." I
assume the purpose would be this, that if an employer discharged a
Communist, when his contract did not permit him to do so, it would
be an unfair labor practice unless this act would say nothing in any
other act.
Mr. Barron. The National Labor Relations Board is very clear on
that subject, and there have been a number of cases in which it has
specifically said that an employer may discharge because of Commu-
nist Party membership, and so long as an employer does not discharge
on the grounds of discrimination because of union membership, the
NLRB does not cover them.
Mr. Arens. Yes, but this act does not only cover Communist Party
membership. It covers not only Communist Party membership but
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 313
people who refuse to tell a congressional committee whether or not they
willingly or knowingly have been a member of an organization pre-
scribed under the Internal Security Act.
Mr. Barron. All right. But there is nothing in any statute now
which prevents an employer from doing that, witness the adoption
of our policy.
Mr. Arens. We are under the impression that there is, that an em-
ployer cannot discharge a man — some employers cannot discharge a
man who has failed to testify before congressional committees.
Mr. Barron. My point is, Mr. Arens, that if they cannot do it, they
cannot do it by virtue of their contract. Their disability must arise
from a contract, and not from a statute of the Federal Government.
The National Labor Eelations Act itself does not prevent them from
taking every one of the actions which is indicated in S. 23.
In my opinion, I think if you would check with representatives, for
example, the General Counsel's office of the National Labor Eelations
Act, he would bear me out.
Mr. Arens, I would certainly defer to your opinion on the law, be-
cause you are a specialist in this labor field and I am not.
Mr.' Barron. Acaially, we think that S. 23 does not state a congres-
sional policy that employees who come within its terms should be dis-
charged. It therefore seems objectionable in that it does not clearly
indicate the policy of Congress, and in part it seems to imply that Con-
gress is delegating its responsibility in these matters to private parties.
Turning to page 18, we recommend that as a matter of preparation
and prevention in advance of the time of the actual danger. Congress
should make it the responsibility of the Government security agencies
to investigate and determine when there is reasonable ground to be-
lieve that employees in vital defense facilities will engage or probably
will conspire with others to engage in acts of espionage or sabotage.
That is the tost now in force for determining whether the Attorney
General shall seek to arrest and detain employees on the outbreak of
war. We suspect, although we of course do not know, that the Attorney
General probably has a substantial list of persons who already fit this
test. It is also quite conceivable that a number of such persons may
now be employed in critical defense facilities.
Mr. Arens. Under the Internal Security Act, I think it is section 5,
of the Internal Security Act, a person who is a member of a Commun-
ist-action organization, may not work in a defense facility as pro-
scribed by the Secretary of Defense after the final order has been
issued and confirmed.
Mr. Barron. Well, as we state in part of the testimony that I skip-
ped here, we think that is an inadequate provision, and we think it is
subject to all of the difficulties which we have already experienced with
respect to the Taft-Hartley Act, because as that is now drafted, it
stands in the present tense. A person who is a member of a Commun-
ist-action organization. We are fearful that when a final order does
get entered, let us say against the Communist Party, that the same
evasive and avoidance tactics of resigning from membership may
largely nullify the provisions of that statute.
Mr. Arens. That gets back to the point we were making a few
minutes ago as to what is membership.
Mr. Barron. It does, exactly. Consequently, we think that is inade-
quate. We think that you need to have this professional investigation
314 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
and actions based upon it authoritatively and finally. Our conclusion
is simply, and I think we already have stated, on page 18, it is our
opinion that it is unwise to knowingly permit suspected subversives
to remain in the employ of critical defense establishments until the
outbreak of war, yet this is what the Internal Security Act and the
Emergency Detention Act apparently contemplate. Our recommen-
dation is that instead of waiting until actual wartime, to remove
subversives from plants doing defense work, or which would be imme-
diately required for defense work, the Internal Security Act should
provide a means for having them identified in peacetime, followed by
directions that they be discharged from employment in such plants.
Our suggestion, of course, contemplates that as in the Detention Act
now, the employees would be afforded the right of administrative and
judicial review and that the Government should provide compensation
for those who, upon such review, are found to have been unjustly
accused and suffered losses in earnings.
Mr. Arens. Could I ask you something there, Mr. Barron. Have
you given thought to specific language for an amendment to the Inter-
nal Security Act? That is title 3. I assume, that you are talking
about, in the Internal Security Act, the emergency-detention provi-
sion which would meet this situation of identifying known agents
so that in the event of war or an internal-security emergency as pro-
claimed in the Internal Security Act they could be promptly appre-
hended and detained?
Mr. Barron. No ; I have not, sir. Of course, in our recommenda-
tion, what we have really done is that we have taken the test that is
now^ applicable under the Detention Act, where there exists reasonable
grounds to believe that he would commit espionage or sabotage. Then
tlie Attorney General under the Detention Act is expected to go in the
day Congress declares war and serve warrants of arrest. That is the
only test that now exists. We have suggested that at least that concept
should be moved over in advance of the day that Congress declares war
or that we suffer an armed invasion. Whether that test would be ade-
quate in peacetime. I don't know.
]\Ir. Arexs. It would depend upon the membership problem, would
it not ? It would help there ?
Mr. Barron. Well, whether there is reasonable grounds to believe
that the man would commit espionage or sabotage. It is a vague test,
probably, and I think it would be helpful if you could spell out addi-
tional criteria such as those already suggested in the Internal Security
Act itself and in the Goldwater bill.
One question I might return to. Senator Butler, where you asked at
the outset what is the view of industry as to what these bills, particu-
larly the 1254 and 1606, what influence they have as to industry's view
with respect to choosing bargaining representatives. I think you can
understand from our whole testimony that we believe firmly in the
right of the individual employees to choose their bargaining repre-
sentatives. We have suggested and we indorse the principle that even
where a union is found to be Communist dominated, the loyal rank and
file should have the means, the opportunity, and the assistance of get-
ting rid of the leaders and keeping their union as a loyal existing union.
Our only comment is this, that those who say that any regulation of
unions in this respect is union busting, ignore what the Supreme Court
has said with respect to unions. The Supreme Court, in the Dowds
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 315
case, quite clearly indicated that unions have gotten great power from
the assistance of the Government, with the backing and support of
government. They have done this because government gives the au-
thority of a majority to speak for all.
I think as Justice Vinson said, that when power derives particularly
from the thumb of government upon the scale, then those that enjoy
that power partake in many respects of government itself; and that
they are therefore peculiarly subject to regulation to see that that
governmentally given power is properly exercised. Consequently, on
that very theory, the Government upheld the Communist affidavits.
Certainly, as you commented in your own hearings, the emploj^er dom-
inated organizations do not get the protection of the National Labor
Relations Act. So in brief, our view is industry's view. General Elec-
tric's view is that certainly nothing should be done in this statute
which prevents the employees from choosing loyal bargaining
representatives.
We don't think that under the Goldwater bill that would happen.
We think that properly administered, with the due process protection,
and the judicial review afforded, this would not be a union-busting
program, and if it were, we would not endorse it.
Senator Butler. Thank you, Mr. Barron, and thank you ever so
much, Mr. Boulware, for coming down and taking your time to give us
your views. We certainly appreciate it. It has been most constructive
and educational to me.
We will take a brief recess.
(Brief recess.)
Senator Butler. The subcommittee will be in order.
I would like at this point to make an insertion in the record. It is
an article entitled "Red Infiltration of Labor Unions," by J. Edgar
Hoover, and it is a reprint by permission of the A. F. of L. Labor
Guide, preview issue, fall of 1053. It will be made a part of the
record.
(The article referred to follows:)
[Reprinted with permission from the A. P. of L. Labor Guide, preview issue, fall, 1953]
Red Infiltration of Labor Unions
By J. Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
The American labor unions have long been singled out by the Communist
Party as a primary object of infiltration. A desired goal of the Comnumist is
the domination of the labor movement in our country. Infiltration into labor
leadership is their stratagem ; their weapons are lies, trickery, and deceit.
The great god of communism, V. I. Lenin, stated. "It is necessary to be able
to withstand all this, to agree to any and every sacrifice and even — if need be —
to resort to all sorts of devices, maneuvers, and illegal methods, to evasion and
subterfuge, in order to penetrate into the trade unions, to remain in them, and
to carry on Communist work in them at all costs."
The titular leader of the Communist Party of the United States, William Z.
Foster, in 1932 wrote, "The Communist Party bases its work directly upon the
mills, mines, and factories. Its principle is to make every shop a fortress for
communism. It follows closely the life of the workers in the industries, adapting
its immediate program of struggle to their needs."
These statements, made long ago, are observed daily in their practical appli-
cation. The Communists seek the cover of labor unions and the support of the
laborer solely to carry out their aims of communizing and regimenting the lives
of the workers.
The Communists only recently set forth the latest strategy to be followed in
their program of infiltrating into the labor unions. The theme of their party
316 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
line is that the party will now fight for united labor action, and this fight must
take place everywhere, although the tactics of the fight may vary in different
ai'eas. They say that united labor action is the decisive pattern through which
organic unity can be achieved. They state that organic unity is the most desir-
able, most necessary, and the highest form of labor unity.
By "organic unity" the Communist Party means that the labor movement
jniist unite into one federation consisting of the right, left, and independents.
The role of the Communist Party in the fight for organic unity in the labor
movement will be —
1. As a party, to explain to the workers this purported need for unity.
2. To help organize the fight for this unity on a basic industry, city, and area
level.
3. To develop class consciousness.
4. To recruit new party members.
The Comiminists are taught that a disciplined minority group can win con-
trol of a union by capturing key positions. This constitutes the heart of their
plan of infiltration. One of their techniques in capturing a union consists of
sending a small group of party members to obtain employment in a plant
repre.'^ented by the union they seek to capture. They are instructed to do
nothing initially to attract attention. Gradually, they become vei-y active in
union affairs and try to gain a following among the union members. The
Connnunists strive for friendly relations with tliose members who are inter-
ested in leadership. They encovirage them to take active part in union affairs
and even to run for office. They work diligently, day and night, to win sup-
port in the union. The Red group urges each of its minions to mold his or her
following into a unified voting bloc.
These Commnists may very well assume an anti-Communist attitude and
make anti-Conununist statements. Whatever their guise, they Vv'ill, neverthe-
less, attempt to control all policy decisions. They will be schooled in parlia-
mentary procedure and will attempt to gain the floor at union meetings in
order to advance their cause and to obstruct the measures of the opposition.
Even the physical seating arrangement at union meetings is taken into con-
sideration. The party members and followers will be scattered strategically
throughout the hall : concerted action, whether of applause or loud shouting,
will follow at a prearranged signal. Such strategic seating arrangement may
give the appearance of a definite majority for or against any proposal.
ATTENTION TO DETAILS
The Communists select, in advance of the meeting, the members who are to
place before the union the motions favorable to their cause. Those who are to
sec(uid the motions are also handpicked. If the Communists can place one of
their own in the position of chairman, they can effectively silence the opposition.
This is accomplished simply by the refusal of the Chair to recognize a known non-
Communist speaker. AVith such systematic planning, a motion can be rushed
through an unprepared and disorganized opposition ; the affairs of a union can
be dominated.
The same techniques are followed in electing their fellow Communists to the
various oSices of the union. At all union meetings, and especially at elections
when the ultimate control of the union is at stake, every parliamentary trick is
used. Motions are rushed through without debate ; the Communists have been
known to tamper with the ballot boxes.
DISTURBANCE TECHNIQUES
Non-Communist members are sometimes denied the opportunity, because of
the raucous shouting of the Communists, to present their side of an issue to their
fellow members. If these techniques should fail or serious opposition develop,
the session is allowed to drag on and on. Finally, the opponents of the Com-
munists depart either through disgust at the Reds' evasive techniques or through
sheer exhaustion. This leaves the Communist minority in control, with enough
of their supporters present to constitute a quorum.
A typical Communist plan of action currently being used to infiltrate into
labor unions involves the building of as many caucuses in as many unions as
possible. The influence of the party in those unions is to be increased. The sale
of party literature to union members is to be stressed. Industrial unions and
"right-led unions" are to be primary targets. Such tactics of inflltration bear
all the earmarks of carefully formulated and skillfully executed military
campaigns.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 317
MOTIVES ARE CLEAR
The motives of the Coiumuuist Party in organized labor are clear. The Com-
munists seek to destroy the American way of life with its unparalleled standard
of living. Victory is sought through domination of the labor field. The work
of the Communists in labor organizations is part of the same internatonal scheme
of conquest as is their aggression on foreign fields by force of arms. The Com-
munists cry "peace in the world," but they obstruct efforts to have peace. So,
on the labor front, they incessantly clamor that they seek only the betterment
of the workers. Yet, their tactics are only to disrupt, and in those lands where
their system has stolen control of the reins of government, labor has suffered.
Contrast the motives of the Communists with the legitimate aims of unions
dedicated to the advancement of labor. The objective of a non-Communist labor
union is to secure stable economic benefits for its members. This is sought
through establishing mutually compatible relations with management. The
tactics of the Comnumists are geared to interfere with constructive labor rela-
tions. They nurture and exploit periods of unsettled labor problems.
Their disruptive tactics, accompanied by chicanery and trickery, expose the pre-
tended claim of the Communists who say they are striving only for labor's
economic betterment. Their everchanging techniques of obstruction, of false
claims for propaganda purposes and their acts of war while spouting slogans
of peace, make a mockery of their very slogans and propaganda. Our heroic dead
in Korea bear mute testimony to their concept of peace and the deceit they
practice.
The Communists have never truly sought the economic betterment of the
individual. The improvement of working conditions is to them a slogan which
is but a means to an end — power. Power in the hands of the Comnumists means
the destruction of the heritage which is ours — freedom from want, freedom from
fear, freedom of worship and s])eech. The destruction of these freedoms behind
the Iron Curtain, more than anything else, has demonstrated to the American
people the true meaning of communism.
The leaders of labor have not been oblivious to this tyranny. The late great
lalior leader and labor president, William L. Green, declared : "No organization
can be free under communism because it is compelled to subordinate the interest
of the workers to those of the Communist I'arty."
In more than half a century of the existence of the American Federation of
Labor, the tribute can be paid to its leadership that they recognize the dangers
in the never-ending assault by the Communists to seize control. They recognize
that communism is nothing less than a Red Facist conspiracy to conquer and
rule the world by any means.
The fight is not an easy one. The Communists continue to preach their in-
sidious doctrines of class warfare, of a "natural and unceasing" hostility between
labor and management. Many leaders of labor organizations have met these
falsehoods by demonstrating the existence of mutual understanding between
labor and management. These leaders are bargaining collectively in an atmo-
sphere free of armed troops, controlled national government elections and gov-
ernment elections and government-directed puppets.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Communists should accuse these labor
leaders of a failure to defend the interest of the workers. William Z. Foster
called for an "enlightened leadership" in labor organizations of the same char-
acter as in some foreign countries "where union leadership has passed into the
hands of the Communists." The steps taken by many American labor unionsi
to guard against Communist infiltration and Communist indoctrination misht
well serve as a guide not only for labor, but for all organizations whose in-
fluence upon the lives of the people indelibly stamijs them as an objective of
Communist infiltration. The American Federation of Labor has recognized that
there can be no compromise with communism. It recognizes that there can
be no compromise with a movement devoted to the destruction of the historic
objectives of our free American society.
TRUTH IS OUR WEAPON
Intelligent labor leadership has refrained from fighting communism with the
deceitful tactics employed by the Communists. Instead, this leadership has
utilized a weapon unknown to the Communists, yet more deadlv than any the
Comnumists have ever devised. That weapon is truth, before which "com-
munism cannot survive— truth al)out our national institutions, truth about our
43903 — 54 21
318 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
economic problems, truth about the leadership necessary in labor and maua.se-
ment, and, finally, truth about the manifold lies and distortions utilized by the
Comnmnists and the system they espouse.
The power of truth in the fi^ht against communism is demonstrated in the
bitter stru.a:sle engaged in by one union to drive the Reds out of positions of
leadership. The president of the union said the Reds were on the point of captur-
ing the union and using it as a wedge for greater gains in labor. He said they
fought the Conmiunists by relying on the intelligence and the integrity of the union
members. Union meml^ers in each factory and each union local were contacted.
The falsehoods of the Communist cause were pointed out to them. At the out-
set, only a few took up the fight against communism. Then, by the thousands,
the union members, including many former Communist sympathizers, joined
forces acainst the Communists and noAv form a determined opposition to them.
The stronirest counterforce against the attempts by the Communists to seize
control of labor is labor itself. Lalior must continue to meet this challenge.
Constant vigilance by rank and file union members and by labor leaders against
Red infiltration is the price that mvist be paid on the home front for the preseiwa-
tion of our democratic mode of living.
freedom's reward
Sacrifice it does entail, but the reward is freedom for the individual, his family,
his fellow citizens, and all posterity. Just as labor and management can work
together to solve economic problems, so too they can work together to render
impotent the threat of communism. Both responsibilities should and must be
shared.
This threat of communism does not concern labor alone. It is a problem to be
faced squarely by all Americans. The Federal Goverimient, in the services of
the people, continues its relentless fight on the common enemy. The FBI is
charged by Congress with the investigative responsibility of preserving the in-
ternal security of the United States against subversive movements. FBI investi-
gations are conducted concerning espionage, sabotage, and related subversive
activities. The most important single menace today is communism.
We of the FBI have also been a target for Communist attack. A favorite
allegation is that the FBI iuA'estigates labor and labor unions. The truth is the
FBI never has and never will concern itself with the employer-employee rela-
tionship, nor do we investigate labor unions and their members. Tlie FBI has
no intention of interfering with organized labor. Great numbers of our per-
sonnel come from the homes of men and women who have long been active mem-
bers of labor unions. We have, however, investigated instances of Communist
infiltration into labor unions. To a non-Communist, there should be and there
is a vast difference between the investigation of a union and the investigation of
Communist infiltration into a union. In fact, it can now be revealed that able,
loyal labor union members and leaders have asked the FBI to investigate Com-
munist infiltration in their ranks. The Communist infiltration into unions,
especially unions working in industries essential to our national defense, offers
the greatest danger of sabotage and disruption of our defense efforts.
Tlie primary emphasis of the Red infiltration pro.gi'am has been on the heavy
and strategic industries, since control of these is useful for the accomplishment
of their ultimate purpose — the overthrow of this Government by force and vio-
lence. Such industries as railroads, shipbuilding, atomic energy, steel, com-
mnnications, the electrical and automotive industries have long been the targets
of Communist infiltration.
RED CONTROL A PERIL
Communist control of any union is a matter of serious concern. Communist-
inspired strikes not only injure the interests of labor and management but also
hurt the general public welfare. The Communist-controlled nnion has an oppor-
tunity to promote factional dismites, dissatisfaction among union members, and
a general feeling of hostility and unrest.
A second spurious allegation of the Communist is that the FBI violates civil
rights. This, too, is typical of the Communist method of attack. The FBI is
essentially an investigative agency. In our responsibilities to the Nation, we
strive to get the facts. We do not establish policy, nor do we make decisions
as to prosecutions — that is solely the responsibility of the Attorney General, his
assistants, and thf various United States attorneys.
Any honest and fair-minded individual can easily observe that the FBI is
constantly working to protect civil rights. During tlie fiscal year 1952 the num-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 319
ber of civil rights investigations conr^jctecl by the FBI reached an alltime high
when 1,841 such investigative matters were handled. During the first 9 months
of the fiscal year 1953 there were l,o79 such investigative matters handled by
the FBI.
The jurisdiction of the FBI is fixed by Congress and by Presidential direc-
tives. Our investigators are trained special agents. They entered under an
educational requirement that they be graduates of an accredited law school or
accounting school with practical accounting experience. Their investigations
are objective and impartial ; their investigative methods scientific, pointed, and
conducted so as to preserve inviolate the civil rights of the individual.
Communism recognizes no rights at all. The Communists place their trust
in their Soviet masters. American labor has rejected and must continue to
reject the ruthless creeds of a Communist state. The strength and hope of
America lie therein.
hitler's bltjepkint
In 1927, Adolf Hitler completed his two-volume w^ork Mein Kampf, explaining
the aims of his movement and portraying its development. He said that "for
the uniform and unified propagation of a doctrine, its principles must be laid
down for all time." He wrote that "Whatever Heaven's purpose with us may be,
people must know us even by our visor." The tyranny of his movement and the
treachery and cruelty seen throush their visors by the armored columns of his
forces as they carried out the dictates of Mein Kampf were halted only through
untold sacrifices by free peoples. But, through all the years of his transgres-
sions, in periods when he pretended peace and made treaties only to break them;
when he kidnapped and murdered the opposition; when he cajoled and lilted
overtures of friendship and international cooperation, never once did he re-
nounce the doctrines spelled out in Mein Kampf.
The Communists, too. have their Mein Kampf — the Communist manifesto —
written a hundred years before the flames of World War II. "Communists
* * * openly declare that their purpose can only be achieved by the forcible
overthrow of the whole extant order." Like Hitler, our Red Fascists have an
outline of their movement. Like Hitler, they alter tactics from time to time,
hiding their ti'ue aims behind beguiling promises which merely veil the treachery
lurking behind. Only fools would be deceived. Despite tactical measures
adopted by them for temporary ends, they, like Hitler, have never repudiated
their basic doctrines. The lesson of Hitler is one to give us pause.
A foreign inspired movement is among us. Its sinister aims should not be
underestimated. Its fervor and burning hatred of our cause should be realized.
Its sniping and underhanded tactics should be intelligently exposed. It is a
malignant growth which is nurtured in darkness ; it cannot survive where there
is light. Truth will defeat it. All of us must so conduct ourselves that truth is
freed and is allowed to counteract and remove this cancerous growth.
LABOR IS VIGILANT
The ranks of labor have been and will continue to be an inestimable help.
Indeed, vigilant labor can be the main bulwark against which all the frenzied
surges and furtive moves of communism strike in vain. It is in the field of
labor where the major Communist issues will be fought on a day-to-day basis.
American laborers are not dreamy, timid, and confused men. American labor-
ers are practical, courageous and clear-thinking people. They are not easily
fooled and victimized. They have, in many instances, met Communist deceit
with forthrightness and honesty. Again and again this has meant defeat for
the Communists. It must always spell this defeat until communism, like the
noxious weed it is, has been torn out of the field of organized labor, root and
branch, and consumed by its o^^^l poison. Free American laborers will insure the
freedom of America.
Senator Butler. Gentlemen, the subcommittee will suspend until
2 o'clock, when it will resume session again in this room,
("WHiereupon, at 11 : 50 a. m., the hearing was recessed, to recon-
vene at 2 p. m. the same day.)
320 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
AFTERN'OON SESSION
Senator Eastland (presiding). The committee will come to order.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Selly will be the ^Yitness this afternoon.
Senator Eastland. Will you remain standing and be sworn?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give the
Judiciary Committee on Internal Security will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Selly. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH P. SELLY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N. Y.
Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and occu-
pation.
Mr. Selly. My name is Joseph P. Selly. I reside at Fort Lee, N. J.
I am president of the American Communications Association, an inde-
pendent union.
Mr. Arens. Would you identify the American Communications
Association by the contracts it holds and where it operates ?
Mr. Selly. We hold contracts with the Western Union Telegraph
Co. for the area generally designated as the New York metropolitan
division of that company. That is New York and its environs. We
hold a national contract with RCA Communications, with properties
in New York, main properties in New York and San Francisco.
Mr. Arens. Do you know whether or not the American Communi-
cations Association people service the tie lines and lease lines out of
the Pentagon ?
Mr. Selly. If they come into these main operating rooms, if there
are such tie lines coming into the main operating rooms where our
members are employed, then those people whose function it is to service
tie lines and lease lines generally would service those lines.
Mr. Arens. Do you know whether or not the American Communica-
tions Association people service the overseas North Atlantic cables of
Western Union and of other cable companies that transmit messages
over the North Atlantic route ?
Mr. Selly. The answer is "yes" in connection with Western Union
cables. That is where we have a contract. We do not have contracts
with the other cable companies.
Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Selly, in May and June of 1951 the Internal
Security Subcommittee released testimony respecting Communist con-
trol of the American Communications Association, in which a num-
ber of the officials of the American Communications Association were
identified by live witnesses, under oath, as Communists. I wonder if
you would kindly now tell this Internal Security Subcommittee what
the American Communications Association has done to rout the Com-
munists expelled from the association.
Senator Eastland. Who were the officials that vrere named ?
Mr. Selly. Mr. Chairman, before we go into this, I came here at
my request to testify on a series of bills which we considered anti-
labor legislation, and I was invited by this committee to give testimony
on those bills. I have a ])repared statement.
Senator Eastland. Which is correct ? You say you requested and
then you say the committee invited you.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 321
Mr. Sellt. Both, actiuill3\ I was requested and I was invited. I
have prepared testimony. I sat here this morning and saw the ex-
treme courtesy with which representatives of industry were treated
by counsel for this committee a]id the committee. I was here last
week when a labor union was testifying. It seems to me that if this
committee is to carry out its proper legal function it ought to give
me an opportunity to put my statement into the record and to comment
on it and not to engage in a
Senator Eastland. Any congressional committee has its own rules
of procedure.
Mr. Selly. But do they vaiy as between industry and labor?
Senator Eastl^vkd. "Wait just a minute. I am going to get to that.
Any committee has a right to ask questions by which we would be
helped in evaluating testimony. Where there is information in any
case tliat men or officials of a imion or of industry are members of
the Communist conspiracy against the Government of the United
States, that question is asked, and it is our duty to ask, because
Mr. Selly. I didn't hear it asked of any representatives of industry.
Senator Eastland, Well, we had no information that they were
Comnnmists. There was a union that was asked that question, and
it was asked the official. I asked the question, because we did have
information that the union was Communist-controlled and that he
was a Communist.
Mr. Selly. May I ask, am I going to be permitted as every — ■ —
Senator Eastland. I will not argue with you. I want to be cour-
teous. But I want you to courteously answer the questions. You
will be permitted to put your statement into the record, of course.
You will be permitted to comment on that statement. But you are
not going to foreclose the committee from asking you questions that
we think aid us in evaluating the vei'acity of your testimon5\
Mi\ Selly. Senator, I assure you that I will be as courteous to you
as you are to me.
Senator Eastland. I am going to be courteous to you. But I want
you to answer his question.
Mr. Selly. Well, first, will my statement be entered in the record ?
Senator Eastland. I am going to let you enter it or read it or
testify or whatever you want to do. When the counsel asks you a
question or I aslv you a question, then I am going to expect you to
answer that question. If you desire the privilege of the fifth amend-
ment, you can take that privilege.
Mr. Selly. Thank you. I ask, again, that I be permitted
Senator Eastland. I want you to answer his question and then you
can go on with your statement.
Mr. Selly. You will have to read back the question.
Mr. Arens. I can give you the essence of the question, if it would
be helpful to you, Mr. Selly.
In 1951, the Internal Security Subcommittee released testimony in
which a number of the officials of the American Communications As-
sociation were identified by live witnesses under oath as members of
the Communist Party, the Communist conspiracy. You are here
before this committee which is dealing with that problem, and wants
to consider legislation to drive Communists out of labor organizations.
I wish you would kindly tell us now what the American Communica-
322 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
tions Association in the light of this testimony has done to drive the
Communists out of the American Communications Association.
Mr. Skli.y. The testimony that you are referrinp; to was made avail-
able to the membership of my union in several forms. Voluminous
excerpts were printed by the union along with an analysis of it. A
rival union, which was seeking to raid our jurisdiction, distributed
wholesale copies of that testimony. The membership gave their
answer subsequently in a collective-bargaining election whereby a
larger majority than had prevailed a previous time, they reasserted
their desire to be represented for collective bargaining by this union.
Mr. Arens. Will you tell us what you have done to drive the
Communists out?
Senator Eastland. I want to ask a question. That is a loaded
question. Do you have the same officers that you had before the
charges were made?
Mr. Sellt. Yes. Substantially, yes. There has been one change,
but the leading officers of the union are the same as at the time.
Senator Eastland. And do I understand now that no action has
been taken to rid the union of those officials.
Mr. Selly. On the contrary. We are currentlv in the period desig-
nated by our constitution for elections, unionwide elections, and we
have what has been characterized by Prof. Sumner Slichter, among
others, he is at Harvard T"nivprsity, one of the most democratic consti-
tutions of any union in the United States. An example of it is that it
requires only 100 signatures on a petition to be nominated for the
highest position in the union. That, is the office I now hold, the office
of president.
Tlie nominating period concluded at the end of February. A pre-
liminary check from the locals indicated that I received as candidate
for the office of president approximately -3.000 signatures supporting
my nomination. The same is roughly true of all the other officers.
Senntor Eastland. You have brought yourself into this discus-
sion. Were you one of those who were named as a Communist?
Mr. Sellt. I am not certain. The record will speak for itself.
Senator Eastland. You said, I miderstand that you said that a rival
union distributed voluminous excerpts from the hearings.
Mr. Selly. That is right.
Senator Eastland. Were you one of those who were named as a
Communist?
Mr. Selly. I say I am not certain. The record will speak for itself.
Senator Eastland. Did you read those releases?
Mr. Selt,y. I read it a long time ago; yes.
Senator Eastland. You do not know whether vou were named or
not?
Mr. Setj.y. I am not certain that I was.
Senator Eastland. Mr. Counsel, was this witness one of those that
were, named ?
Mr. Arens. So that the record is clear, I will read an excerpt from
the report of the committee.
Senator Eastland. I do not wnnt the committee report. T will let
you put that into the record. Was he one of those named?
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Senator Eartt.and. I am going to ask you this question : Are you
now a member of the Communist Pai'tv ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 323
Mr. Selly. I don't think that question is relevant to the subject of
the testimony that I came down here to give.
Senator Eastland. Well, I want you to answer the question now,
and I decide what is relevant. I ds not want to argue with you, but
as 1 told you, it is very important for us to evaluate your testimony.
Mr. Selly. Well, it would be like saying
Senator Eastland. To be a member of the Communist Party is a
crime. To teach and advociU:e the overthrow of the Government of
the United States is a crime under the statutes of the United States.
Mr. Selly. I am not a lawyer. But I think you aie inventing a
crime. I do not think
Senator Eastland. Then if it is not a crime, answer my question.
That is what I thought you would say, and that is what I was getting
at. If it is not a crime, you cannot claim the 5th amendment and I
M'ant you to answer that question.
Mr. Selly. You know as well as I do whether or not it is a crime
to be a member of the Communist Party.
Senator Eastland. You said I was inventing a crime. Answer my
question.
Mr. Selly. Well, I protest, again, that this is an invasion of my
rights, that this committee has two standards, a double standard, one
for industry and one for labor.
Senator Eastland. Yes, I understand. But everybody that we have
information on that are members of the Communist Party, we ask
them that question, and we are going to continue to ask that question.
J want you to answer my question. Are you now a member of the
Communist Party ? Are you presently a member of the Communist
Party ? I will put it that way.
Mr. Selly. 1 refuse to answer that question, I don't think it is
relevant to this inquiry.
Senator Eastland. On what ground ?
Mr. Selly. On the ground that it violates my rights under the 1st
and 5th amendments.
Senator Eastland. All right, that your testimony might incrimi-
nate you ?
Mr. Selly. That isn't what I said. That is what you said.
Senator Eastland. That is what the 5th amendment said, is it not?
That is your right ?
Mr. Selly. 1 think I know what the 5th amendment says.
Senator Eastland. Have you been guilty of espionage against the
United States?
Mr. Selly. No.
Senator Eastland. What?
Mr. Selly. No, I have not.
Mr. Arens. Are you under Communist discipline at the present
time?
Mr. Selly. Look, I protest, again, gentlemen. You are being a
little bit obvious about your bias.
Senator Eastland. I do not give a darn what you tliink, and care
less, but I want vou to answer the question. If you come here,
3'ou are going to answer the questions we ask you.
Mr. Selly. No, I am not, not just to suit your pleasure, Mr. Senator.
Senator Easti.and. All right. Answer my question.
Mr. Selly. "Vl^liat was your question ?
324 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. Are you under Communist discipline ?
Mr. Selly. I refuse to answer that.
Mr. Arens. Do you take orders from the Communist Party ?
Mr. Selly. In the case of the preceding question, and this one, and
all questions of a similar character, I assert my rights under the first
and fifth amendments to refuse to answer.
Mr. Arens. Is the American Communications Association con-
trolled by the Communist Party ?
Mr. Selly. No ; it is not.
Mr. Arens. Is the top leadership of the American Communications
Association Communist ?
Mr. Selly. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of my
rights under the first and fifth amendments.
Senator Eastland. Let him go ahead with his statement. You may
proceed.
Mr. Selly. Before I proceed, I w^ant to tell you what I understand
the fifth amendment to mean, and it does not mean to me what you
said about it.
Senator Eastland. Well, the Constitution speaks for itself. You
may proceed with your statement on this bill.
Mr. Selly. Let me just read what I rely on.
Senator Eastland. I want you to do what I told
Mr. Selly. Senator
Senator Eastland. It speaks for itself. You go ahead with your
statement.
Mr. Selly. I think I have a right — —
Senator Eastland. Do you want to make vour statement?
Mr. Selly. Yes.
Senator Eastland. All right, proceed with it.
Mr. Selly. This statement is made on behalf of the American
Communications Association, in opposition to the McCarran bill, S. 23,
the Goldwater bill, S. 1254, and the Butler bill, S. 1606, bills now
before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On behalf of the American Communications Association, I wish to
state the unalterable opposition of our membership to the bills pending
before this committee, the Butler bill, S. 1606, the Goldwater bill, S.
1254, the McCarran bill, S. 23, and all similar legislation that would
place additional weapons in the hands of the employers in their im-
placable warfare against the wages, hours, pensions, working condi-
tions, security, and living standards of American wage earners.
The employer-inspired assault on the rights and interests of labor
which these bills represent is an extension of the attack that had its
beginnings in the emasculation of the Wagner National Labor Rela-
tions Act and the enactment of the Taft-Hartley law in 1947. To put
these proposed measures in their proper perspective, it is useful to
briefly restate the purposes of the original Wagner Labor Relations
Act, which were
Mv. Arens. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Selly. I would like the entire statement to be received into
the record.
Senator Eastland. It will go into the record.
SUBVERSIVE ESTFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 325
(Mr. Selly's prepared statement follows:)
In Defense of the Jobs, Wages, and Conditions of Working People and of the
Economic Security op the United States Through the Maintenance of
Free, Democratic Labor Unions
Statement of the American Communications Association in opposition to ttie
McCarran (S. 23), Goldwater (S. 1254), and Butler (S. 1606) bills now before
the Senate Judiciary Committee
On behalf of the American Communications Association I wish to state the
unalterable opposition of our membership to the bills pending before this com-
mittee, the Butler bill (S. 1606), the Goldwater bill (S. 1254), the McCarran bill
(S. 23), and all similar legislation that would place additional weapons in the
hands of the employers in their implacable warfare against the wages, hours,
pensions, working conditions, security, and living standards of American wage
earners.
The employer-inspired assault on the rights and interests of labor which these
bills represent is an extension of the attack that had its beginnings in the emascu-
lation of the Wagner National Labor Eelations Act and the enactment of the
Taft-Hartley law in 1947. To put these proposed measures in their proper per-
spective, it is useful to briefly restate the purposes of the original Wagner Labor
Relations Act, which were:
(1) To permit and encourage self -organization of workers into unions
of their own choosing for the purpose of bargaining collectively with their
employers to determine wages, hours, working conditions, and other condi-
tions of employment.
(2) To put an end to the vicious, unfair labor practices of employers which
prevented self-organization by eliminating labor espionage, blacklisting,
company domination of unions and other forms of company interference
with the right of employees to freely choose their own unions and union
leaders.
(3) To correct the dangerous imbalance between powerful, organized
industry and weak, unorganized labor for the purpose of maintaining and
increasing the purchasing power of the mass of the people through collective
bargaining, and, thereby, limiting the possibilities of unemployment and
depression.
Protected by the Wagner Act from the most extreme abuses of employer power,
American wage earners used their hard-earned freedom to organize into unions
of their own free choice. Through these democratically chosen instruments they
have improved w^ages, hours, and working conditions, and improved pensions and
job security, and, by so doing, have bettered tlie economic health of the whole
Nation.
BIO business reaction
Big business, however, has never accepted these principles of democracy in
industry. From the inception of the Wagner Act onward, they have main-
tained a consistent campaign of propaganda and pressure designed to recapture
their previous position of domination.
Failing in their frontal assault which took the form of provoking long and bitter
strikes and engaging in lockouts and diehard resistance to union organization,
the employers concentrated their attacks on the legislative front. Their first
great success, won over the veto of the President of the United States, was the
amendment of the Wagner Act and the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act.
The Taft-Hartley Act, unashamedly espoused by big business as its own crea-
tion and universally characterized by all of organized labor as a slave labor
law, marked a long step in the return of labor relations to the law of the jungle
that prevailed prior to 1935. In the period since its enactment, the organization
of the unorganized of labor has been slowed down almost to a stop. The ability
of unions to represent their members in collective bargaining has been seriously
weakened. Strikebreaking by injunction has greatly increased. Enormous fines
and judgments for damages have crippled unions financially. Yet the full effpcts
of this slave labor law have never been truly felt. A tight labor market has
prevented full use by the employers of the union-busting provisions of the act.
These conditions, however, have disappeared. The army of the unemployed is
-growing, the labor market is such that union-busting is profitable and i)ossible.
In addition, the present administration has appointed employer representatives
to dominate the National Labor Relations Board to give the union-busting
326 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
provisions of the act their most piTnitive interpretation. Thus the country will
soon reap in full the evil fruits of the slave labor law.
AN employers' law
The employers, through the Taft-Hartley law, have the instruments to dis-
courage self-organi7.ation of the workers, to split up their industrial bai-gaining
units, to prohibit organization of sujiervisory workers, to separate professional
categories, to discourage organization through antiunion propaganda issued
under the guise of "free speech for employers." to fire workers for union activity
without punishment for unfair labor practices by disguising the discharge as a
discharge for cause, to strike at the financial health of the Unions througli damage
suits, to break strikes through injunctions, and by the utilization of all these
measures and others in the act to promote disunity and disorganization among
the workers in order to smash their unions.
The Taft-Hartley law has overthrown the proper relationship between the
power of big business and the stresigth of the labor movement.
The necessary balance between business and labor was destroyed. The labor
movement could not under these conditions act as a counterpoise in the economy.
Shackled by Taft-Hartleyism and under constant legislative attack, the labor
movement has not been able to fully protect the real wages of American
workers. Discriminatory, oppressive taxation, ever-rising prices, and huge cor-
porate profits have steadily sapped the purchasing power of the people. In
this process the American economy is being undermined at its very foundations
and a ruinous economic crisis threatens the security and the well-being of the
Nation.
ECONOMIC CRISIS
Even on the basis of conservative Government estimates, our countiy is faced
with serious economic problems. The index of industrial production which stood
at 137 in July of 1953 has dropped sharply to 125 in January of 1954. It is
expected that February will show a further drop. Inventories in January of
this year were still, in spite of this reduction in production, billions of dollars
above those of a year ago. This process of rising inventories and falling pro-
duction has had a disastrous effect on incomes of workers. Payrolls have
declnied by billions of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of workers who depended
on overtime earnings to meet the inflated cost of living have seen those earnings
disappear. Those long accustomed to a full workweek and finding themselves
hard put to make ends meet even working full time have in the past year been
reduced to the status of part-time workers. It is estimated that at least 5 million
workers are working less than full time with a proportionate reduction in their
earnings. Average hours worked stood at 41 hours per week in January of
19.53. One year later, in January of 1954, the figure was 39.4. Average weekly
earnings which stood at $71.34 in Januai-y of 1953 dropped to $70.92 in January
of 1954. During the same period the Consumers' Price Index went from 113.9
to 115.2. Thus, the drop in real wages was even much greater.
UNEMPLOYMENT RISES
In January of this year 4 million people were unemployed and the figure will
be higher for February. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently reported a
drop of approximately 2 million in nonagricultural employment in a single
month. In addition to the threat of unemployment brought on by reduced in-
dustrial production, workers in more and more industries face the threat of
technological unemployment, speedup and the runaway shop. It is this threat
to the livelihood of the millions of Americans who work for a living that is the
real danger to national security. The economy and the people's livelihood will
not be restored by anti-Red ballyhoo. An unemployed worker can't get away
vpith calling his landlord an "apostle of doom and gloom" when he asks for the
rent. He has to pay up or be evicted.
The farmers of this country are caught in the whipsaw of declining prices for
the goods they sell and rising prices for the goods they buy. While in 19.53 cor-
porate earnings rose well above those in 1952. farm income for 1953 fell off 7 per-
cent. This drying up of the purchasing power of the farmer has aggravated
unemployment in the urban centers. The constant decline in farm income and the
constantly rising surpluses of farm commodities is a real threat to the national
security.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS .327
The earnings of the workers and farmers are falling while the earnings of the
corporations continue to rise. Therein lies the threat to the national security.
That's the problem that big business is trying to obscure with a smokescreen of
anti-Red hysteria.
In November and December of 1953, the last months for which figures were
published, imports and exports showed a decline. This is a threat to tlie health
not only of our own economy, but to the world economy. Particularly is it dan-
gerous to the economies of fi-iendly nations.
As the economy shows more stress and strain, the small and marginal busi-
nessman is pressed to the wall by the monopolies. Business failures are up very
substantially over last year.
THE KEAL THREAT
Yes, there is a real threat to the national security of oiir country. It rests in
the developing economic crisis. It rests in the efforts of big business to ride that
crisis at the expense of workers, farmers, and small-business men. It rests in
that rolling readjustment. Tlie monopolies in this crisis seek to shift an even
greater share of the tax burden onto the shoulders of tlie people ; they seek to
cut wages while increasing production through speedup and automation. They
are ruthlessly laying off hundreds of thousands of workers every month. Thus
they hope to maintain their huge profits during the rolling readjustment by
readjusting the workers and farmers to unemployment, insecurity, and a lower
standard of living. This is a tall order. Big business doesn't thinly it can get
away with it. not even with the Taft-Hartley law, the IMcCarran Act, the McCar-
ran-Vv'alter liill, and all the investigating committees thrown in. They need to
bring back the ei'a of the company union, the labor spy, the professional strike-
breaker, the company police. They need to turn the free labor movement of this
country into a puppet of big business, into a creature of the corporations, into a
labor front such as Hitler foisted upon the German workers. Only in this way
do they feel they can get away with their outrageous program of plunder.
That is what they hope to accomplish with the legislation that is befoi'e this
committee, the Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran bills. That is why the Na-
tional Association of Manufacturers, all other liig corporations, and the com-
munications monopolies in particular, support these bills. When the Taft-Hart-
ley law was enacted, the late Philip Murray characterized it as "America's first
step to fascism." Those were prophetic words. Were he alive today to witness
the legislation presentl.v being considered by this committee he would, we think,
denounce them as a further step on that fateful road. These bills are Taft-Hart-
ley carried to the ultimate extreme.
THE EIGHT TO FHIE
Let us first examine the McCarran bill (S. 23), which would amend the In-
ternal Security Act of 1950. Paragraph (d) of the proposed bill contains un-
precedented language which gives employers power to fire workers, not for just
cause or for engaging in-any illegal action, but for perfectly legal political beliefs,
associations, and activities. The employer alone will act as judge, jury, and
prosecutor over the employee. There is no means of defense for the worker, no
redress. If the worker is pliant to the employer's aims, if he is submissive, co-
operative, fearful, antiunion, he might hope to keep his job. If he stood by his
fellow workers, resisted injustice, criticized management, was active in the union,
he could expect to be fired. This is a blueprint for union busting.
Further, the McCarran bill would permit employers to fire any employee who
refused to answer questions about his political affiliations or associations "to a
duly constituted legislative committee." This would clearly make second-class
citizens of American wage earners. Insofar as the tens of millions of workers
in this country are concerned, the Bill of Rights would no longer be their protec-
tion. The Western Union Telegraph Co.. the International Telephone & Telegraph
Co., the Radio Coi*poration of America, American Telephone & Telegraph and all
the other monopolies of this country would be placed above the Constitution of
the United States of America. This is a police state with the employer as the
policeman.
Under such enactments American workers could resist the excesses, abuses,
and ii-relevancies of investigating committees only under pain of suffering an eco-
nomic death sentence. Invocation of their constitutional rights would auto-
matically suspend them from employment.
328 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
COMMON CHARACTERISTICS
The Goldwater, Butler, McCarran bills differ one from the other in certain
minor respects. All three bills, however, provide in common that a trade union
may not be permitted to function as a collective-bargaining representative of its
members unless the union and its officers meet certain statutory standards set
forth in the bills. Although the standards differ slightly and the techniques
adopted by the three bills are not identical, American Communications Associa-
tion objects to all of the bills for the following reasons :
1. All three Mils limit the right of the members of trade unions to choose their
oivn officers
The right of the members of a union to choose, in a free and democratic election,
their own officers is a fundamental right necessary to the survival of democratic
trade unionism. Any Government interference with this right is undemocratic
and un-American.
The members of American Communications Association, like the members of
-every other trade union in the United States, are just as capable of determining
for themselves who their officers shall be as they are capable of determining for
themselves who their Congressmen shall be, who their President shall be, and who
their officers shall be in their fraternal, social, and charitable organizations.
Thus, trade unionists have as much ability to exercise these fundamental demo-
cratic rights as have the stockholders of a large corporation the ability to deter-
mine who their officers shall be.
It would be intolerable if the members of the National Association of Manufac-
turers and the United States Chamber of Commerce were told that the Govern-
ment was imposing limitations on their rights to choose officers ; it is equally
intolerable for members of a trade union to be told that the Government imposes
limitations on their right to choose their officers.
Such Government interference in the right of trade unionists to choose their
leaders was a characteristic of the trade-union movement of Nazi Germany and
Fascist Italy. It has never been a characteristic of the trade-imion movement of
this country or of the democratic trade-union movements of Canada, England,
:and other countries where such movements exist. To suggest that members of
trade unions cannot be trusted to pass upon the qualifications of their own officers
is a gratuitous insult to the intelligence and patriotism of those members and
■will particularly be resented by them.
Officers of trade imions like all other persons in this country are subject to all
of our laws. If they are guilty of violation of any criminal statute they can be
punished for such violation. But in the absence of such conviction the Govern-
ment cannot interfere with their right to hold office and still maintain its claim to
industrial democracy. If tlie policies of trade-union officers are incorrect, the
members of those unions can be trusted to remove them. They do not need the
assistance of a governmental agency in the exercise of their rights.
2. All three hills limit the rir/ht of a union to adopt policies which arc not
approved by the administration curreiitly in power
This again is undemocratic and contrary to the basijc principles of American
democracy. The membership of a union should have the right to determine
its own policies so long as these policies are not illegal, just as all other organ-
izations have the right to decide upon the adoption of legal policies. Thus,
leaders of the American Communications Association have the right to favor
higher wages in the telegraph industry ; they have the right to favor higher or
lower rates, shorter hours, faster service in the telegraph industry. The mem-
bers of the American Communications Association have the right to determine
for themselves whether they will favor merger of the international communi-
cations carriers or oppose such merger. They have the right to determine for
themselves whether they will or will not engage in political activities and, if
they decide to engage in political activities, they have the right to decide for
themselves what political program they will support and what candidates they
will sponsor.
The basic evil in these bills lies not only in the fact that particular individuals
in the Government are given the right to decide whether the policies sponsored
by a union are permissible or impermissible. Nor do we complain merely
because of our feeling that the administration of these laws may be sympathetic
or unsympathetic to the trade-union movement. We would oppose such legis-
lation whether the President of the United States were Eisenhower, Roosevelt,
Lincoln, or Jefferson ; we would oppose such legislation whether the Attorney
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 329
General of the United States were Brownell, Frank Murphy, or Joseph R. Mc-
Carthy. We would oppose siich legislation whether it were applied by the
Subversive Activities Control Board or the Supreme Court of the United States.
It is not that we lack faith in our Government or in the people who hold
office ; it is rather because we have faith in our membership. We recognize that
the very meaning of a democratic form of government is that the people must
be permitted to choose their policies without any interference from the govern-
ment regardless of the individuals who may at any particular moment make up
that government.
Of course mistakes will sometimes be made by the members of our union,
but the right to be wrong is also one of the democratic rights. There is no doubt
that the membership of our union or of any other union will be right mucb
more often than it will be wrong. We may further suggest that the membership
of our union or any other union is much more likely to be right more often tham
any individual or small group of individuals whoever they may be who seek to
exercise a political dictatorship over trade-union policies.
The bills confer on the Government the right to investigate unions. The private
affairs of unions, their meetings, policy discussions, collective-bargaining strategy,
strike tactics, inner union politics, all these would become legitimate fields for
investigation and snooping by agents of the SACB or the Attorney General. Em-
ployers would use labor spies for the purpose of reporting and snooping and claim
justiflcation for the activities under this legislation. The Attorney General, the
SACB, and this committee could engage in endless fishing expeditions into its
affairs and embarrass, harass, and weaken a militant union.
3. All three bills seek to limit the right of a union to adopt collective-bargaining
policies of its oion and to exercise the right to strike against intolerable icorking
conditions
Employers who have urged adoption of these laws have engaged in much loose
talk about political strikes, sabotage, and espionage and have sought to create
the impression that the American trade-union movement is honeycombed with
saboteurs and spies.
The truth of the matter is, of course, quite different. We do not hesitate to
match the patriotism of our members against the patriotism of any other group
in this country. We do not know of a single authenticated instance in the recent
history of the United States in which an American union called a political strike.
We defy anyone to present evidence of a single instance of espionage in the United
States connected even remotely with the operations of a trade-union. We do
not know of a single instance of political sabotage in the United States encour-
aged, sponsored, or supported by any trade union. The very fact that such false
charges must be relied upon to justify the bills is in itself the best argument pos-
sible to establish that the bills are unnecessary.
So long as a Tinion commits no illegal acts, it has the right to adopt such col-
lective-bargaining policies -and to engage in such strike activities as its members
may wish. In the absence of a violation of law it cannot be prohibited from
engaging in strikes because some employer or Government official may charge
that the strike is a political strike, or that the collective-bargaining activities
are Communist activities.
In this connection, one of the most dangerous aspects of the present legisla-
tion may be considered. These hills may be invoked at any time and a finding
that the union has violated the law may be based on current activities or on
activities engaged in many years ago. Such laws may be invoked without
notice in the midst of collective bargaining activities. Even in the midst of
a strike they may be used, as indeed they are intended to be used, as an em-
ployer weapon in the economic struggle against unions.
4. All three hills offer no adequate check on arbitrary and capricious official
action
Under the Butler bill the arbitrary action of a single individual, the Attorney
General, responding to the charge of an employer, or informer, or a disgruntled
union member, is enough to destroy any trade union since the mere filing of a
complaint results in the automatic loss of bargaining rights. No single indi-
dividual, no matter who he is, should have such power of life or death over a
trade union. The elimination of this provision from the bill cannot remove
this objectionable feature for in any event a small group of men, whether it be
the Subversive Activities Control Board or a new Government agency, would
have the power to destroy a trade union by making a finding that it comes-
withiii the provisions of the bill.
330 SUBVERSWE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Judicial review of snch findings is completely inadequate in any practical
sense. Such review takes months and sometimes years so that no effective
.iudicial action is possible until the damage has been completed.
5. All three dills set %ip standards of permissible conditct loliieh are highli/
improper
In this connection, we wish to note that even if clear and specific standards
of permissilile conduct were set up, we would oppose the bill for all of the
reasons mentioned above. A Government-controlled trade-union movement is
im-American whether that movement be controlled through the use of exact
standards or ambiguous standards. The ambiguity of the standards here, how-
ever, compounds the evils of these laws. Loose phrases, such as "siibversive
activities," "Communist-front organizations," "world Communist movement"
have no clearly defined meaning. Senator McCarthy, for example, with the
apparent approval of the Republican National Com.mittee has publicly accused
the last 5 Democratic administrations of "20 years of treason." Clearly acts
which he considers to be treasonable were considered patriotic by Presidents
Roosevelt and Truman and their associates.
Mr. Wilcox, vice president in charge of labor relations for Western Union,
in his testimony before this committee, called the union shop un-American.
The Butler bill provides that "whenever it is charged that any labor organiza-
tion * * * is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by any individuals
* * * who have consistently aided, supported, or in any manner contributed to
or furthered tlie activity of (the Communist Party or of any Communist-action
organizations or Communist-front organization)," the union may be deprived
of its bargaining rights. In other words, if a trade-union oflScer follows a policy
for shorter hours, higher minimum wage, rent control, guaranteed annual wage,
etc., and the Communist Party espouses a similar policy, his union may be
destroyed under this strange doctrine of guilt by parallelism. When we con-
sider the position traditionally taken by some employers in this country that
all trade unions are "Communist" the danger of such legislation is evident.
For example, in December 1951, the United States Chamber of Commerce said,
"The CIO has never rid itself of its Marxist economics. Virtuall.v every impor-
tant speecli and publication * * * is replete with class-conscious hatred of em-
ployers, and is designed to intensify the class struggle." A report made for the
Timken Roller Bearing Co. in February 1953 shows "a surprising coincidence of
attitudes between CIO official publications and Communist papers * * * the CIO
follows the Communist Party line with the persistence of a shadow."
Nor is the American Federation of Labor immime. Indeed, the preamble to the
AFL constitution might easily he considered adherence to the Communist Party
line. It states "a struggle is going on in all the nations of the civilized world
between the oppressors and the oppressed of all countries, a struggle between the
capitalist and the laborer which gi'ows in intensity from year to year and will
work disastrous results to the toiling millions if they are not combined for mutual
protection and benefit."
A detailed analysis of these bills could, of course, disclose many other ob-
jections to the legislation — provisions which would destroy or cripple the demo-
cratic trade-union movement. Such an analysis, however, could do little more
than buttress the basic conclusions reached above, for these bills are wrong in
principle. Any legislation which seeks to impose govei'nmental control upon the
leadership and policies of a trade union is inconsistent with a free labor
movement.
BIG BUSIJVESS BILLS
No one person may rightly feel any pride of authorship in any of these bills.
In fact they represent the cooperative effort of the corporations, acting individ-
ually and through their own powerful lobbying organizations, the National Asso-
ciation of Manufacturers and the chamber of commerce. Every concept incorpo-
rated in these three bills mirrors desires fii'st expressed in the publications of
these organizations or in the public statements of their spokesmen.
Fortunately, the genesis of these bills is something of a matter of public record.
That record shows that the employers in our own industry, the communications
industry, are among the prime movers in the formulation of these proposed
measures.
Among other corporation executives, spokesmen for the American Cable &
Radio Corp., a subsidiary of the giant International Telephone & Telegraph Co.,
and the monopoly Western Union Telegraph Co. have appeared before this and
other Senate bodies as long ago as 1951. They advanced certain legislative pro-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 331
posals to answer their own private uuion-bustins: profit-seeking needs. These
proposals are now to be found in the three bills before you. The employers seek
to justify them on the baseless claim that they are essential to the national
security.
THE companies' EECOKD
The Nation would have been served far better if the qualifications of such
companies as I. T. & T. and Western Union to speak on questions involving the
national interest and their true motives in seeking such legislation had been
investigated. For the fact of the matter is that both these commercial giants do
not come into court with clean hands, but rather with records reeking with viola-
tions of the national interest, violations of the rights of labor, and violations of
solemn commitments made to Congress, itself, and to other agencies of our
Government.
As is the fashion these days, spokesmen for both these companies had the
effrontery to wrap their antidemocratic, anti-American legislative proposals in
the American flag. This is a blasphemy — and the record categorically proves it.
I. T. & T. AND OUR ENEMIES
The fact is that I. T. & T. has a notorious record of dealings with Fascist
dictatorships. vSosthenes Behn, president of I. T. & T., visited Hitler at Berch-
tesgaden and had a chimimy relationship with Francisco Franco and maintained
his Spanish properties throughout the war. The head of I. T. & T.'s German
subsidiai'ies, Gerhardt Alois Westrick, was chased out of this counti'y in 1940
(after war had broken out in Europe). He w,as here attached as a commercial
counselor to the German Embassy, but maintaining a residence under an assumed
name and organizing for the Nazis. He left the United States in a great hurry
wlien he and his Nazi activities were exposed by the New York Herald Tribune.
I. T. & T. had cartel arrangements and exchanged patents with such Nazi
firms as Siemens and Halske which had the monopoly on manufacture of elec-
trical equipment for the gas ovens used by the Nazis to exterminate hundreds
of thousands of human beings. The subsidiaries of I. T. & T in Germany and
in neutral countries gave direct aid and assistance to the German war effort
at a time when our boys were fighting and dying in the war against the Nazis.
These intertwined relationships continued throughout the Avar.
"When, after the war broke out, the iron guard took over Rumania for Hitler,
I. T. & T. cooperated with the iron guard. Later it sold the Rumanian tele-
phone system. The newspapers at the time expressed great surprise at the
ability of I. T. & T. to do business with a Nazi-dominated country and to get
paid off in United States funds.
WESTERN UNION AND THE WAR EFFORT
And what of Western Union's claim to patriotism? Though not in the same
class as the I. T. & T. international octupus. Western Union established its
own sad record of violating the national interest during the war and since.
It was Western Union which bitterly resisted the suggestion that singing
telegrams and dog-walking services should make way for vital war traffic. It
was Western Union which, in flagrant contempt of solemn commitments made
to Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, hacked away at the
Nation's communications nerve system by eliminating thousands of telegraph
ofBces, depriving whole communities of vital telegraph service, permitting facil-
ities to degenerate into uselessness, wiping out the jobs and junking of precious
skills of thousands of woi'kers and saddling the American public with dismally
inferior telegraph service. And it is AVestern Union, which at this very moment,
and in further violation of its pledges, is engaged in a countrywide program
of wholesale office closures which will further reduce the already pitiful scope
of telegraphic coverage in our country.
PLAN TO HARM AMERICA
And it is both I. T. & T. and W^estern Union who are today engaged in an all-out
effort to extend their depredations of the national interest by attempting to
foist on Congress and the American people a new and devastating plan for a
monopoly in the international record communications field — a plan harmful to the
national defense establishment, harmful to the business community, the public,
and harmful to the workers in the industry.
332 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Patriotism? Their flag" is tlie almiglity dollar. Their allegiance is to profit.
Their bible is the bankbook.
Therein lies the explanation for the legislative proposals they have advanced
and which are now incorporated in the bills under consideration. In order to
pursue their single-minded goal, they must eliminate any union which stands
in their way, especially our organization which has for nearly 20 years stood
as an impregnable bulwark in defense of the interests of its members and in de-
fense of the public interest against these marauding corporations.
THE REAL AIMS
That the real aim of I. T. & T. and Western Union is not to protect the Nation
or to eliminate subversives, but to smash democratic unionism, is clear to all
but the blind, the bought or the bedeviled — and it, too, is on the record.
I. T. & T.'s hatred for our organization dates back to 1935 when we turned
back their union-biisting attempts to prevent their employees from organizing
into a union of their own free choice and, in the process of doing so, won the
first United States Supreme Court decision establishing the constitutionality of
the AVagner National Labor Relations Act.
In the years that followed our union was outstandingly successful in estab-
lishing for the I. T. & T. employees we represented the highest standards of
v.'ages, hours, and working conditions in the entii'e communications industry.
As a result, the hatred of I. T. & T. for its employees and our union was so
deep and the company's financial stake so great that its directors spent millions
of dollars of stockholders' funds in a successful effort to smash a o-month-long
strike in 1948.
Ever since, I. T. <& T. has moved heaven and earth, including congressional
committees, to prevent their employees from exercising their right to freely
choose a union to represent them. To this very day, as a result of the company's
union-hating campaign, its employees are without union representation of any
kind.
ADDITIONAJ. MOTIVES
Western Union, likewise, has made no secret of its extreme displeasure over
the fact that our union has been able to achieve for its members the highest
wages and best working conditions obtained by telegraph workers anywhere
in the United States. This company, too, has fought us tooth and nail, at the
bargaining table, on the picket lines, and before congressional committees such
as this — and always with the same purpose, to weaken, divide, and possibly
destroy us, in the knowledge that by so doing they could declare open season on
the wages and employment conditions of their workers, exacting increased profits
for the company.
That this is Western Union's sole concern in initiating the proposals now con-
tained in the three bills before this committee is also a matter of record. We
refer to the official Government transcript of testimony presented by Western
Union officials at hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security
on May 16, 1951.
That transcript is nothing more than a compendium of anguished complaints
against bona fide trade-union activities to improve the lot of the working men
and women of Western Union.
OCR "crimes"
These were tbie "crimes" with which these worthy corporation spokesmen
charged our union and its membership : That we had successfully disestablished
the Association of Western Union Employees, one of the oldest and most firmly
entrenched company unions in the country, and had for the first time in the
history of Westei'n Union compelled the company to bargain with a democratic
and militant union run by and for Western LInion workers; that we fought for
wage increases and against speedup ; that, when pressed to the wall by a vicious
management, we utilized the American right to withhold our labor and won our
strike against the company ; that, having won that strike, we resented the months
of stallinir bv the companv in oavine us the retroactive inore.nsps nvovirlprl in
the contract, and compelled them to pay up ; that, despite every conceivable
obstacle placed in the path of the Western Union workers by a rabid manase-
ment. which publicly characterized the union shop as "un-American." the.se
workers nevertheless fought for, voted for, and won a union shop : that, despite
every effort to slander and vilify our organization, the Western Union workers
in six consecutive National Labor Relations Board elections chose our organiza-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 333
tlon as the one which on the record deserved their confidence, loyalty and support.
These were the "crimes" of which we were accused by the Western Union
officials — the "crimes" of asserting the dignity of working men and women and
successfully compelling the Western Union Telegraph Co. to grant them .nt
least a modicum of what was their due ; the "crime" of compelling this nnworfni
company to disgorge a modest part of its precious profiti*
COMPANY PROPOSALS
This is the heavy burden which Western Union has asked the Congress of the
United States to lift from their shoulders. And to accomplish their pvirpose,
they made specific proposals which have been written into the legislation now
before you. They proposed that employers be given the right to fire "subversive"
employees without liabilit.v, and that employers be provided with a means to re-
fuse to bargain with a union and union officers freely chosen by their employees.
"subversion" is defined
To be sure, the attempt was made to rationalize these morbid proposals claim-
ing the need to safeguard against "subversion."
Fortunately, no less an authority than Mr. J. L. Wilcox, Western Union vice
president in charge of employee relations and chief spokesman for the company
before this committee, provides us with a definition of that much abused term.
In a most revealing statement, Mr. Wilcox declared :
"It is so hard for me to distinguish between what might be termed a good union
practice from a union standpoint and some of these acts which we might feel are
subversive from a communistic angle" (transcript of testimony before the Senate
Subcommittee on Internal Security).
Exactly.
Neither Mr. Wilcox's language nor the language in the bills now under con-
sideration distinguish between subversive activities and good, bona fide union
practices. Indeed, if these measures were adopted into law they would provide
tlie basis for completely equating the two, and thereby would end free trade
unionism in the United States.
existing protection
The officials of the communications monopolies are not concerned about
national security. They know the national security is not threatened by trade
unions. They are concerned about profits. To them subversive activities are
synonymous with union activities. Some spokesmen for union-busting legisla-
tion have attempted to single out the communications industry and argue for
special measures because of the very nature of the communications industry
itself. What these people fail to point out is that special legislation has existed
for many years protecting the communications industry. The Federal Communi-
cations A' t of 1934 makes it a criminal offense for anyone to divulge the eon-
tents of a telegraph or cable message. Severe penalties are provided for acts in
violation of this law, and yet there is no record of any member of ACA ever
having been charged with, let alone having been convicted of, violation of this
law.
One can understand the employers' desire for this kind of un-American legis-
lation. They care little about the Constitution of the United States or of the
rights of the people who work for them. They are interested in profits, and in
increasing their power to make more profits. In a service industry like the
communications industry, the big cost is labor, and the profit lies in cutting the
labor cost. This is A B C to a telegraph company. We can expect such laws to
be written by the communications corpoi'ations. We can only be shocked, how-
ever, that a responsible elected Representative should introduce such measures
into Congress and that this committee should entertain them seriously enough
to hold hearings on them.
THE RECORD OF ACA
The very communications companies whose record is one of dollar patriotism
have the cynical effrontery to attack our union and impugn the loyalty of its
officers and members.
Our patriotism has been affirmed by far more responsible judges.
4390S — 54 22
334 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Our membership is .iXTStifiaMy proud of their union's record in war and peace.
We are proud of such contributions as these :
No strike pledge : 100-percent observance of the no-strike pledge. Not
a minute's stoppage despite the many provocations of communications companies
and shipowners.
Clearing the wires: Elimination of fixed-text messages and setting of speed-
of -service standards by the Board of VTar Communications through BWC Order
2.5-C. This was the result of ACA's production committee's efforts and the
ACA campaign to *'get the message throush."
ACA safety and antiespionage plan : Late in 1941 and in early 1042, the ACA
submitted a nine-point plan to the Government to aid it in antiespionage work
and to guarantee safety of communications and ships in the war. It was
designed to meet many problems arising in shipboard wartime communications,
attacks on ship convoys, war against the enemy at sea, and to generally facilitate
the merchant marine's contribution to the war effort. The plan was adopted
by Government agencies, through the United States Coast Guard. Capt. E. N.
Webster, representing the commandant of the Coast Guard, said of the ACA
with respect to this plan :
''The thorough study made by the ACA of the complex problem of providing,
in time of war, greater protection of life and property at sea is most commenda-
ble and the suggestions of the union have .sruided the various Government agencies
in providing those vitally needed protective measures."
Voluntary shipping pledge : The voluntary wartime shipping pledge of ACA's
marine radio operators in the United States merchant marine helped to keep the
ships sailing to get the siipplies of war to the world's battlefields. The casualty
list among these ACA members who went down witli their ships was greater
proportionately than any branch of the Armed Forces. Many of these won
citations for "heroism beyond the line of duty." Ships have been named in honor
of some ACA members.
Blood to Red Cross : ACA's campaign inspired its members to donate thousands
of pints of their blood to the Red Cross.
Bonds : ACA's war bond campaign raised huge sums of money to buy the vital
equipment and arms for victory.
TRIBUTE TO DUE PATRIOTISM
Here is testimony to the contributions made by our union :
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower : "All ranks of the Allied forces are deeply grateful
for your pledge of continued cooperation. We fully appreciate the vital part
played by all groups affording communications."
Maj. Gen. H. C. Ingles : "This will acknowledge receipt of telegram * * * in
which you express the desire of your organization to exert all extra effort to
'get the message through.' This is indeed the true American spirit and it is with,
this type of cooperation from the men and women on the production front that
the final day of victory will be hastened."
Mr. Alex. G. Nordholm (chief of the national section of war production drive) :
"From what I've seen of your work, I have been tremendously impressed with
the constructive thinking you have been doing on the problem of communica-
tions in wartime. You have done things yourselves to improve conditions
through your work in victory committees. You have shown that you are sin-
cerely concerned with winning the war. You are going beyond what is normally
expected. I have nothing but praise for the work the American Communica-
tions Association has done so far."
Adm. Emory S. Land : "The members of your association are giving valiant
service to our common effort — the defeat of our enemy nations."
Col. S. P. Fink, United States Army Signal Corps : "Back at home the national
communications members of the war team — that's you and me — Signal Corps
and ACA — has done its job fast and well. The American Communications
Association has recognized the need for handling Government messages quickly.
The ACA has never let us down. We are confident it never will."
James L. Fly, FCC Chairman : "I know that ACA will continue to consider
ways in which it can best assist the winning of the war. The members of your
union are of special importance in that task, and I know that they will continue
to get the message through safely, efficiently, and without delay."
Boston Evening American: "The American Communications Association, a
CIO affiliate made up of Western Union employees, has set a patriotic pattern
for all union employees in the United States during the war."
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 335
Newark Star Ledger : "No finer example of labor's responsibility and of faith
in the democratic process has been given than that furnished by the American
Communications Association, CIO."
New York Journal-American : "When a union^ — and as vital a one as a tele-
graph workers' union — pledged itself to place the needs of the Government above
personal considerations then indeed we are in the presence of patriotism in the
best meaning of the word."
Milwaukee Journal : 'The American Communications Association, a CIO union
for employees for the telegraph systems, has set an example and high mark for
all unionism during the war."
New York World Telegram : "The American Communications Asosciation.
CIO, seems to have a different, and, wo think, a finer conception of its obli-
gation."
TOWAKD A BETTEB LIFE
Prior to the inception of our organization, there were no legitimate unions hav-
ing contracts in the communications industry. The wages of telegraph workers
fell to the point where they were on the bottom of the list of published industries.
Telegraph workers were saddled with a company imion, the Association of West-
ern Union Employees, which specialized in ne[;otiating with the company for
wage cuts, reduction of pensions, reduction of sick benefits and vacations, and
generally collaborated in fixing upon the Western Union workers a worsening
rather than an improvement of their substandard conditions. Telegraph workers
were subject to part-time employment, to arbitrary discharge, to favoritism In
the administration of promotions and demotions, to split tricks, to arbitrary and
onerous assignment of hours, to insufficient vacations, and countless other evil
conditions which the telegraph companies not only maintained but furiously
defended against improvement. Conditions were equally bad in the I. T. & T.
subsidiaries, companies now known as the American Cable & Radio Corp. and
the Postal Telegraph Co.
It was the ACA which organized the workers nationally in Postal Telegraph
and instituted union conditions in the international communications field in
IMackay Radio and RCA Communications. It was the ACA that under the
Wagner Act exposed the use of labor spies from the Railway Audit Co. by the
Western Union Telegraph Co. and eliminated the company union, the Association
of Western Union Employees. This cleared the way for the organization of the
Western Union employees into ACA and the AFL.
It was the ACA that challenged the company unions in telephone and was
the first legitimate union to organize telephone workers on a large scale.
ACA has tripled the average wages of telegraph workers, has introduced
longer vacations, higher sick benefits, improved pensions, night differentials,
daily overtime, premium pay, extensive severance pay giving job security against
layoff or discharge.
In the international communications field the American Communications Asso-
ciation has raised wages to an average of over $2 an hour, has reduced the work-
week to 37V2 hours in .5 days, has won 4 weeks' vacation for all employees with
over 10 years of service, has extensive sick, death, and pension protection and
extensive guaranties of job security.
Thousands of commuications workers today eat better, live better, and have a
greater feeling of security and hope for the future because of the efforts of their
union, the American Communications Association. They know, too, that their
union has always acted not only in their interest, but in the public interest.
The ACA has fought against the development of monopoly in the industry, the
countless Wall Street merger schemes being foisted upon the public by the
speculators and bankers. ACA has fought for lower telegraph rates, for better
service, for more branch office coverage, for better and more facilities at the
disposal of the pul)lic and the Government.
In the light of this record it is not surprising that the corporations initiate and
support legislation designed to destroy our union and all other organizations
which serve the interests of the American working people.
In summary, these three bills would impose undemocratic and discriminatory
prohibitions against the free labor movement in this country ; they seek to sub-
stitute for the democratic will of American trade union members the autocratic
dictates of a Government agency ; they are fiagrant examples of class legislation
which would deprive working people of their franchise while giving lethal
weapons to the employers for union-busting purposes ; they ignore the real
problems confronting the entire American people, that is the dangerous en-
croachment of monopoly and the threat of a serious economic crisis ; they would
336 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
contribute to the hastening of that crisis by depriving workers of the opportunity
for effective collective bargaining. And they would effectuate this program under
the false cover of anticommunism.
Mr. Sellt. To put these proposed measures into their proper per-
S]3ective, it is useful to briefly restate the purposes of the original
"VVagner Labor Eelations Act, which were :
1. To permit and encourage self -organization of workers into
unions of their own choosing for the purpose of bargaining collec-
tively with their employers to determine wages, hours, Avorking con-
ditions, and other conditions of employment.
2. To put an end to the vicious, unfair labor practices of emploj-ers
which prevented self -organization by eliminating labor espionage,
blacklisting, company domination of unions, and other forms of com-
pany interference with the right of employees to freely choose their
own unions and union leaders.
3. To correct the dangerous imbalance between powerful, organ-
ized industry and weak, unorganized labor for the purpose of main-
taining and increasing the purchasing power of the mass of the people
through collective bargaining, and thereby limiting the possibilities
of unemployment and depression.
Protected by the Wagner Act from the most extreme abuses of em-
ployer power, American wage earners used their hard-earned freedom
to organize into unions of their own free choice. Through these
democratically chosen instruments they have improved wages, hours
and working conditions, and improved pensions and security, and, by
so doing, have bettered the economic health of the whole Nation.
Big business, however, has never accepted these principles of de-
mocracy in industry. From the inception of the Wagner Act onward,
they have maintained a consistent campaign of propaganda and pres-
sure designed to recapture their previous position of domination.
Failing in their frontal assault which took the form of provoking
long and bitter strikes and engaging in lockouts and diehard resistance
to union organization, the employers concentrated their attacks on
the legislative front. Their first great success, won over the veto of
the President of the United States, was the amendment of the Wagner
Act and the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act.
The Taft-Hartley Act, unashamedly espoused by big business as its
own creation and universally characterized by all organized labor as
a slave labor law, marked a long step in the return of labor relations
to the law of the jungle that prevailed prior to 1935. In the period
since its enactment, the organization of unorganized labor has been
slowed down almost to a stop. The ability of unions to re})resent
their members in collective bargaining has been seriously weakened.
Strikebreaking by injunction has greatly increased. Enormous fines
and judgments for damages have crippled unions financially. Yet
the full effects of this slave labor law have never been truly felt. A
tight labor market has prevented full use by the employers of the
union-busting ])rovisions of the act. These conditions, however, have
disappeared. The army of the unemployed is growing, the labor
market is such that union-busting is prohtable and possible. In addi-
tion, the present administration has appointed employer representa-
tives to dominate the National Labor Eelations Board to give the
union-busting provisions of the act their most punitive interpreta-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 337
tion. Tims the country will soon reap in full the evil fruits of the
«lave labor law.
The employers, through the Taft-Hartley law, have the instru-
ments to discourage self-organization of the workers, to split up
their industrial bargaining units, to prohibit organization of super-
visory workers, to separate professional categories, to discourage or-
ganization through antiunion propaganda issued under the guise of
"free speech for employers," to fire workers for union activity without
punishment for unfair labor practices by disguising the discharge as
a discharge for cause, to strike at the financial health of the unions
through damage suits, to break strikes through injunctions, and by
the utilization of all these measures and others in the act to promote
disunity and disorganization among the workers in order to smash
their unions.
The Taft-Hartley law has overthrown the proper relationship be-
tween the power of big business and the strength of the labor
movement.
The necessary balance between business and labor was destroyed.
The labor movement could not, under these conditions, act as a coun-
terpoise in the economy. Shackled by Taft-Hartleyism and under
constant legislative attack, the labor movement has not been able to
fully protect the real wages of American workers. Discriminatory,
■oppressive taxation, ever-rising prices, and huge corporate profits
have steadily sapped the purchasing power of the people. In this
process the American economy is being undermined at its very foun-
dations, and a ruinous economic crisis threatens the security and the
well-being of the Nation.
The next section, which I will try to summarize in order to save
time, deals with a partial analysis of the danger spots which we see
in the current economic picture.
Even using the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, the Government
figures, for the description of the current state of employment and
unemployment, and the Government figures on the index of indus-
trial production, and in our opinion those understate the problem, but
even using those figTires, we have what we believe is the beginning
of a situation which could become very serious, where currently ap-
proximately 4 million workers are working on part time and an addi-
tional 4 million, and these are rough figures, are totally unemployed.
Whether this is called a rolling readjustment or by some other euphe-
mism, the cold fact is that to the worker who is out of work, it is a
personal tragedy, and to the economy it represents a threat, because,
if it happens to enough people, and it is beginning to happen to
enough, it means that purchasing power is so seriously reduced as to
threaten the entire economic picture in the United States and to
threaten a serious crisis of the character which we had some 20 years
ago.
In addition to the current dangerous developments on the eco-
nomic front as they aifect working people, in addition to the serious
effects on the wage earners in this country that are posed by the cur-
rent curtailment of production, the increasing unemployment, the
high prices and taxes on these least able to pay, we have another sector
of the economy that is also seriously threatened. And that is the
very substantial group of farmers in this country.
338 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IX CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Farmers have been caught in a whipsaw of declining prices for
the goods that they sell and rising prices for the goods that they have
to buy. Government figures show that the farm income for 1953 fell
off 7 percent. This has an effect not merely on the farmers, but it
has a chain reaction, because with the impoverishment of the Ameri-
can farmers on any large scale or a lowering of their purchasing
power, the effect is also felt by industrial America and by the work-
ers in industry, because the farmers buy less when they have less
to spend.
Finally, the effect of this economic, threatening economic crisis on
the small-business man is also beginning to be felt, and Government
statistics again show that there is an alarming increase in the number
of failures of small business, small businesses going bankrupt. This,
again, can be traced back to the curtailment of purchasing power on
the part of the mass market in America, which is substantially the
workers and farmers in America.
We suggest that there is a real threat to the national security of
the United States at the present time, and that threat consists not in
the matters which this committee is currently concentrating on, but
consists rather in the very dangerous developments that I just de-
scribed in the economic system of this country.
Mr. Arens. May I just interpose this question at that point : Am
I to understand that you do not think there is a security threat by the
Communist apparatus in this country, that this committee is dedicated
to expose?
Mr. Selly. I will comment on that directly a little later in this
testimony.
Mr. Arens. We deeply appreciate your concern for the security of
the country which you evidence herein your statement. I just won-
dered if you could enlighten us about whether or not the Communist
conspiracy is a threat to this country.
Mr. Sellt. Well, I will comment on that at the appropriate time.
Mr. Arens. Could you tell us now, or would you rather not do that?
Mr. Selly. I prefer to follow the course of my testimony.
Mr. Arens. You are going to come to that later on ?
Mr. Selly. Yes.
Mr. Arens. You are going to talk about the Communist conspiracy
later on in your statement and tell us what threat it poses and what
we can do to drive it out of the unions ? That is the concern of the
committee.
Mr. Selly. I know it is, and I am not going to answer questions that
I haven't had an opportunity to prepare for.
Mr. Arens. You think it is an assumption that the Connnunists
threaten the security of this country ?
Mr. Selly. It is your assumption.
Mr. Arens. Don't you agree with me that there is a Communist
conspiracy that threatens the security of this country ?
Mr. Selly. I will come to that.
Mr. Arens. You would rather not talk about that now ?
Mr. Selly. Not now.
Mr. Arens. I see.
Mr. Seli.y. I say that there is a real threat to the security of this
country, and it rests in the developing economic crises. It rests fur-
ther in the efforts of big business to ride out that crisis at the expense
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 339
of workers, farmers, and small-business men. Currently there is a
debate going on between two schools of economic thought : One which
says that the way to resolve what is admitted to be, by whatever name
it is called, a developing problem in regard to the economy — and that
is stating it mildly — that school says that the way to resolve that prob-
lem is by the trickle-down theory, and I suppose for analogy you might
say they feel that people who espouse this point of view say if you
want to water a tree you sprinkle some water at the top and you hope
that the roots will be nourished. Putting it in the terms that they do
put it, they say that there ought to be a relaxation of taxation on big
business and encouragement given in various technical forms, through
an increased amortization allowance, and accelerated depreciation, and
so forth, and a lowering of taxes on big business.
The theory goes on to say, that theory which I believe to be erro-
neous, goes on to say if we do that, if we relieve big business of what
big business considers restraints on their risk capital, they will be en-
couraged to make further expansion, to increase production and that
w^ill solve the growing problem of unemployment.
Mr. Arens. If big business or a business created or controlled a
labor organization, would that labor organization be certified by the
National Labor Relations Board?
Mr. Sellt. No, that would be a company union and it would not
be.
Mr. Arens. Why wouldn't they certify it ?
Mr. Selly. You know" why.
Mr. Arens. You are testifying. I thought you could help us.
Mr. Selly. I think I can. The law was designed to prohibit em-
ployers from dominating unions because that wouldn't be democratic,
and it would be
Mr. Arens. They would not want outside influence ?
Mr. Selly. That is right.
Mr. Arens. What if the Communist Party controlled the labor
organization ? Do you think that the labor organization then should
not be certified by the National Labor Kelations Board for the same
reason, that it is outside controlled ?
Mr. Selly. I don't think that any outside control should be per-
mitted to determine the policies of a union,
Mr. Arens. Then you endorse at least one principle of the legisla-
tion that is currently before the committee, to preclude certification of
a labor organization by the National Labor Relations Board if that
j^lant or organization is Communist controlled?
Mr. Selly. I don't know that that is the remedy I would seek.
I agree with anybody who says that no outside agency of any kind,
political, religious, economic, or any other kind, should be permitted
to control, to dominate, to influence, the policies of a labor organiza-
tion, because
Mr. Arens. How would the Communist Party or any other politi-
cal entity, assuming, which is a violent assumption, that the Com-
munist Party is a political entity, how would that entity dominate a
labor organization ? Could j^ou explain that to us ?
Mr. Selly. No, I don't know how it could.
Mr. Arens. Well, it would probably do it through the members of
the labor organization or the officers, would it not ?
340 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Seixy. Well, if it were — if you use the analogy of a company
union, if a company wants to dominate an organization, it sets it up,
it finances it, it determines who its officers shall be, and it dictates its
policies.
Mr. Arexs. Well, now, let us assume that instead of a company it
is the Communist Party that is doing this.
Mr. Selly. That would be highly improper, in my opinion, and I
would oppose it.
Mr. Akens. You would oppose it ?
Mr. Selly. I certainly would.
Mr. Arens. You would oppose Communist influence or dictation to
your organization, is that correct?
Mr. Selly. I certainly would.
Mr. Arens. By anybody who is a Communist ?
Mr. Selly. By any political party, by any religious group, by any
group. The policies of my union are determined by my membership
and I would fight to continue it that way.
Mr. Arens. Is there any Communist influence in that deter-
mination ?
Mr. Selly. If there are Communists who are members of our
union, they have the same vote as anybody else, and if j^ou wanted to
stretch it to that degree, there might be a person who is a Communist —
they have a vote like anybody else in my union.
Mr. Arens. How many are in there ; do you know ?
Mr. Selly. No, I don't know.
Mr. Arens. What have you done to undertake to sever any possible
influence by the Communist Party over the American Connnunications
Association? We have agi^eed, now, that that would be bad.
Mr. Selly. What I have done to prevent any outside influence from
determining the policies of my organization is to try to live up to
the principles of the constitution, and to my oath of office.
Mr. Arens. Does that constitution preclude Communists from being
officers of the ACA?
Mr. Selly. It does not.
Mr. Arens. Have you moved to expel any of the Communists in
the ACA?
Mr. Selly. We have not.
Mr. Arens. Well, isn't it rather a pretty generally accepted fact
now that the Communists are under discipline of an outside organiza-
tion, and that they owe their allegiance to an outside organization, to
wit, the Communist Party ?
Mr. Seixy. I don't know how generally accepted that is.
Mr. Arens. You don't accept that?
Mr. Selly. I don't know.
Mr. Arens. You don't know whether or not a Communist is gen-
erally under the discipline of the Communist Party? Is that correct?
Mr. Selly. No more than I know whether a Democrat or a Eepubli-
can is under the discipline of the
Mr. Arens. Have you had any personal experience along that line?
Mr. Selly. I refuse to answer on the grounds of my rights under
the first and fifth amendments.
Mr. Arens. I thouglit you might be able to help us on that. I am
sure it would be lielpful to the committee to have your views on
Mr.
Selly.
Mr.
Arens.
Mr.
Selly.
motivi
es.
Mr.
Arexs.
labor
unions ?
Mr.
Selly.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 341
whether or not the Communists are under discipline of the Communist
Party,
Mr. Selly. Look, sooner or later you will understand that it is not
possible for you to entrap or to get me to testify against myself or to
serve your purpose. I said sooner or later you will understand that.
Mr. Arens. You question the motives of the committee, I take it ?
I question your motives in asking these questions,
I assume you question the motives of the committee?
If they ask those questions, I would question their
, Do you suggest that the committee is out to destroy
The evidence I have seen in the course of these hearings
makes me very apprehensive about what the committee is out to do.
Mr, Arens. It would make all Communists apprehensive; would
it not ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know. It makes me apprehensive,
Mr, Arens. You are a Communist ; are you not ?
Mr. Selly. I have answered that question before. I don't think I
need to repeat.
Mr. Arens. All Communists would be apprehensive of a committee
that is out to destroy Comnumists ; would they not ?
Mr. Selly. That would be a reasonable assumption.
Mr. Arens. Do you know of any Communists that are not violently
opposed to what this committee is doing ?
Mr, Selly. I refuse to answer that question.
Mr, Arens, Now, Mr, Selly, if you will kindly resume where you
were speaking there about preserving the national security. I think
that is an issue that is of considerable concern to the committee.
Mr. Selly. I am sure you are very interested in my comments on
this question.
Mr. Arens. Yes,
Mr, Selly, Before I was interrupted, I think I was describing two
economic schools of thought; one which advocates the relief of the
present threatening crisis, rolling readjustment, or whatever you want
to call it, in the economy by the trickle-down theory.
Mr. Arens. That is what you call the real danger to the national
security, as I recall it.
Mr. Selly. That is right. What I and many other people will call
a real danger to the national security. The economist who comes to
my mind happens also to be a Senator who thinks it is a real danger,
Senator Douglas, who recently spoke on the other side of this coin,
and who advocated what I advocate. That is that the solution to this
problem, which I think is a great deal more serious than some people
think, is not to be found in granting additional privileges or benefits
to big business in the form of tax rebate or accelerated depreciation or
the other forms that have been suggested. But rather to get more
money into the hands of working people, farmers, and small-business
men, to increase purchasing power, because I am convinced, as appar-
ently Senator Douglas and many others are, that that is the only way
to put a stop to the present downtrend in the economy and, if possible,
put it back on an even keel.
This is the general thesis that is suggested here.
342 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Akens. ^lay I ask you right liere on that economic theory,
are you a Marxist?
Mr. Sp:lly. I don't know what a Marxist is, so I can't answer you.
1 am not an economist, except in the sense that any labor leader who
has to deal with problems, economic problems, confronting a lot of
workers, learns a little bit about economics. I have learned some-
thing about economics in that sense, and I don't profess to be an ex-
pert as an economist, except within the limits of the problems that I
have been confronted with.
Mr. Arp:ns. Have you studied Karl Marx' economic theories ?
Mr. Seixy. I don't think that is any of your business.
Mr. Arexs. I thought it might qualify you as a competent observer
along the line of the economic philosophy which you are advocating.
I didn't know,
Mr. Selly. Maybe you think so.
Mr. Arens. Are you a student of Lenin?
Mr. Selly. Again, am I going to be permitted by this committee
to give my testimony in opposition to these bills, or is this a one-way
street, where you only like to hear
Mr. Arens. Would you prefer to complete your testimony and then
have us interrogate you or does it interrupt your trend of thought for
us to pose questions as you go along ?
Mr. Selly. I find it extremely annoying to have you interrupt me.
I would prefer to have you go ahead and let me
Mr. Arens. I was going to com^ment that your testimony is in the
record now, and I thought you were pointing out the highlights here
so that the committee could interrogate you and perhaps clear the
record and perhaps satisfy the committee on certain points on which
we may not be clear. Go right ahead.
Mr. Selly. That is my purpose.
Mr. Arexs. What page are 3'ou on now?
Mr. Selly. Page 4. My statement describes what we think would
be the results of the passage of any of these three laws.
Mr. Arens. I see on page 4 — Do you want me to question you about
the ]Drovisions now or do you want
Mr. Selly. I have urged that you let me finish.
Mr. Arens. I beg your pardon. You go ahead and I will bear in
mind the points I want to ask you about when you are through, then
we will go back over it.
Mr. Selly. The statement continues that big business currently
does not think it has enough of a weapon in the Taft-Hartley law,
and that is why, in our opinion, they are supporting the passage of
legislation such as that wliich is suggested before this committee.
They hope to limit the right of labor to fight for improved wages
and hours and working conditions, and they hope to accomplish this
with the legislation that is before this committee, the Butler, the Gold-
water, and McCarran bills. That is why the National Association
of Manufacturers, all other big corporations, and the communications
monopolies in particular, support these bills. When the Taft-Hartley
law was enacted, the late Philip Murray characterized it as "America's
first step to fascism." Those vrere prophetic words. AVere he alive
today to witness the legislation presently being considered by this
•committee he would, we think, denounce them as a further step on
that fateful road.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 343
Mr. Arens. I take it you and your group are strong against fascism ?
Mr. Selly. I am strongly opposed to fascism.
Mr. Arens. Are you equally strongly opposed to communism ?
Mr. Selly. I refuse to answer that question.
Mr. Arens. They both are threats to the security of the world ; are
Ihey not ?
Mr. Selly. I refuse to answer that question.
Mr. Arens. Is one of them a threat to the security of the world ?
Mr. Selly. I am not going to get into a philosophic discussion with
you. I don't think I can improve your mind or mine.
Mr. Arens. Is fascism a threat to the security of this country?
Mr. Selly. In my opinion, yes.
Mr. Akens. Is that the only threat to the security of this country?
Mr. Selly. No.
Mr. Arens. Well, is commmiism a threat to the security of this
•country ?
Mr. Selly. I refuse to answer that question.
Mr. Arens. I want to go into an analysis of the bill, the several bills
before us. Let us first examine the McCarran bill, S. 23, which would
amend the Internal Security Act of 1950. Paragraph (d) of the pro-
posed bill contains unprecedented language which gives employers
power to fire workers, not for just cause or for engaging in any illegal
action but for perfectly legal political beliefs, associations, and activi-
ties. Would you favor an amendment so that we preclude firing any-
body for political beliefs? If the bills, if these bills here, do permit
firing of people for political beliefs, I would agree with you that we
ought to amend the bills. We don't want that. But I wonder if you
would go along with us, then, if we amend these bills to preclude
firing anybody for political beliefs if we let the employers fire people
because they are Communists. Would you go along with us on that?
Mr. Selly. Look, I want to be given the opportunity to put my
statement into the record in the way
Mr, Arens. It is in.
Mr. Selly. And to explain it in the way that I warit to do it, with-
out interruption from you.
Mr. Arens. Do you want to preclude the committee or the commit-
tee counsel from questions ?
Mr. Selly. No ; I don't want to preclude you from questions, but I
ask the courtesy of waiting until I finish. You are a little bit irre-
pressible on this question, but I suggest that you restrain yourself.
Mr. Arens. I would be hard pressed to apologize to you ; I thought
we were getting along beautifully.
Mr. Selly. I don't expect an apology from you; I don't expect any.
I want the right to present my testimony in my own way, and I will
fight to get it.
Let us first examine the McCarran bill. The employer alone will
act as judge, jury, and prosecutor over the employee who refused to
answer questions about his political affiliations or associations "to a
duly constituted legislative connnittee."
Mr. AjtENS. What do you mean by political affiliations or associa-
tions ?
If you would help us on that — you see, I am not pressing or inter-
rogating, but I want to get this little phrase clear here. You say
344 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
under this proposed legislation tlie employers can fire people be-
cause
iNIr. Selly. The reference there is a ver^^ clear one. It is to the pro-
vision of the bill that would permit the employer to fire a worker who
invokes his privilege under the fifth amendment to refuse to answer
questions. This would clearly make second-class citizens of Ameri-
can wage earners. Insofar as the tens of millions of workers in this
country are concerned, the Bill of Rights would no longer be their
protection. The Western Union Telegraph Co., the International
Telephone Co., the Radio Corporation of America, American Tele-
phone & Telegraph, and all the other monopolies of this country would
be placed above the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Arens. I take it you are a strong advocate of preserving the
Constitution of the United States. Is that correct ?
Mr. Selly. I am.
Mr. Arens. Is the Communist Party dedicated to the destruction
of tlie Constitution ? Do you know ?
Mr. Selly. Look, will you please let me finish my statement?
Mr. Arens. Go ahead.
Mr. Selly. We can stipulate that after everything I say you ask
me a provocative question, if you want to, for the record, and we will
stipulate my answer.
Mr. Arens. Do you construe questions with respect to communism
as provocative ?
Mr. Selly. I construe your tactic in constantly interrupting me
as a provocative tactic and I ask you please to restrain yourself and
let nle finish my statement in my own way. I ask you to give me the
same courtesy that you gave to representatives of industry here.
Mr. Arens. I think you will recall that wlien the witnesses who pre-
ceded you were testifsdng, we continuously had an exchange of ques-
tions and answers.
Mr. Selly. Yes. After you asked if there was any objection and
there was none. In other words, you solicited of them their opinion
as to whether they minded being interrupted.
ISIr. Arens. Is your objection to being questioned a fear that this
record might reflect a little hesitancy on your part to discuss the
Communist conspiracy which is the issue before this subcommittee?
Mr. Selly. I don't know what is before you. I know what is
before me. I have no fear of you or your questions. I assure you.
Mr. Arens. Then whj^ don't you answer them ?
Mr. Selly. Because I want you to be polite, as difficult as you may
find it, and let me give my statement in my own way.
Further, the McCarran bill would permit — I finished that.
Under such enactments Americans workers could resist the excesses,
abuses, and irrelevancies of investigating committees only under
pain of suffering an economic death sentence. Invocation of their
constitutional rights would automatically' suspend them from em-
ployment.
The Goldwater, Butler, McCarran bills differ one from the other
in certain minor respects. All three bills, however, provide in com-
mon that a trade union may not be permitted to function as a collective
bargaining representative of its members unless the union and its
officers meet certain statutory standards set forth in the bills. Al-
though the standards differ slightly and the techniques adopted by
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 345
the three bills are not identical, American Communications Associa-
tion objects to all of the bills for the following reasons :
1. All three bills limit the right of the members of trade unions to
choose their own officers.
The right of the members of a union to choose, in a free and demo-
cratic election, their own officers is a fundamental right necessary to
the survival of democratic trade unionism. Any government inter-
ference with this right is undemocratic and un-American.
The members of American Communications Association, like the
members of every other trade union in the United States, are just
as capable of determining for themselves who their officers shall be
as they are capable of determining for themselves who their Con-
gressmen shall be, who their President shall be, and who their officers
shall be in their fraternal, social, and charitable organizations. Thus,
trade unionists have as much ability to exercise these fundamental
democratic rights as have the stockholders of a large corporation the
ability to determine who their officers shall be.
Mr. Arens. Let's don't talk about communism for just a moment
on that. Would you favor permitting the members of a labor or-
ganization, particularly a labor organization which has a contract in a
Defense Establishment, to elect, as the bargaining representatives
of that group, known, identified spies and saboteurs? We are not
talking about Connnunists now, but spies and saboteurs is all we are
talking about.
Mr. Selly. No. Identifiable spies and saboteurs should be put in
jail.
Mr. Arens. How about people who are part and parcel of a con-
spiracy which is engaged in espionage and sabotage? Should they
be put into jail, too?
Mr. Selly. I am not going to discuss the philosophy of law with
It would be intolerable if the members of the National Associa-
tion of JManufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce
were told that the Government was imposing limitations on their
rights to choose officers; it is equally intolerable for members of a
trade union to be told that the Government imposes limitations on
their right to choose their officers.
Such Government interference in the right of trade unionists to
choose their leaders was a characteristic of the trade-union move-
ment of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. It has never been a char-
acteristic of the trade-union movement of this country or of the
democratic trade-union movements of Canada, England, and other
countries where such movements exist.
Mr. Arens. Do 3'ou have any information regarding government
interference in any of the other European countries? You have Ger-
many and Fascist Italy. How about some of the other countries.
Let's move to the east. Do you have any information about govern-
ment interference in the trade unions in any of those countries?
Mr. Selly. Is your memory short, or don't you intend to permit
me to finish my statement and have your questions later?
Mr. Arens. I thought you might be able to elaborate here a little
bit. You are complaining about trade-union interference by the Nazi
Germans and the Fascist Italians, and I wondered if you had any
346 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
information you could help the committee with about some of the
other countries of Europe.
Mr. Sellt. I think I will wait until the Senator returns so we can
get some ground rules here. I am not going to be interrupted every
2 minutes by you. I don't think it is fair or a proper procedure.
If you are not interested in my testimony, say so.
Mr. Arens. I am greatly interested in your testimony. It is very
enlightening. The only difficulty is you do not give us all of the
information.
Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Arens. On the record. You may go ahead with your statement.
Mr. Selly. Senator, counsel has just agreed, for the fifth time, not
to interrupt me and to permit me to finish my statement.
Senator Eastland. Well, proceed. How far have you gotten?
Mr. Sellt. Not very far, but I think you will have to agree it is
not my fault. He is very curious about my philosophic and other
points of view which I don't think are particularly relevant.
Senator Eastlaxd. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Eastland. I have admitted the statement into the record.
Now proceed.
Mr. Selly. I want now to describe specifically what we object to
in the three bills, the Goldwater. the Butler, and the IMcCarran bills.
The Goldwater, Butler, and McCarran bills differ one from the other
in certain minor respects. All three bills, however, provide in com-
mon that a trade union may not be permitted to function as a collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its members unless the union and
its officers meet certain statutory standards set forth in the bills.
Although the standards differ slightly and the techniques adopted by
the three bills are not identical, American Communications Associa-
tion objects to all of the bills for the following reasons :
1. All three bills limit the right of the members of trade unions
to choose their own officers.
The right of the members of a union to choose, in a free and demo-
cratic election, their own officers is a fundamental right necessary to
the survival of democratic trade unionism. Any Government inter-
ference with this right is undemocratic and un-American.
I will skip the next several paragraphs which make the comparison
between the rights of members of industry, the National Association
of Manufacturers, the United States Chamber of Commerce, to elect
their own officers.
Senator Eastland. "Wait a moment. '\^niat is the provision in the
bill ? What does the bill provide at that point?
Mr. Arens. It precludes certification as a bargaining agency of an
organization that is found to be Communist. Also, it enables em-
ployers to discharge people who are Communists.
Senator Eastland. Is that correct? Is that the provision you had
reference to ?
Mr. Selly. Well, that is part of the provision. The provision goes
much further.
Senator Eastland. Explain them, please.
Mr. Sellt. I do, as I go along. The conclusions of this point we
made is that officers of trade unions, like all other persons in this coun-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 347
try, are subject to all of our laws. If they are guilty of violation of
any criminal statute they can be punished for such violation. But
in the absence of such conviction the Government cannot interfere
with their right to hold office and still maintain its claim to industrial
democracy. If the policies of trade-union officers are incorrect, the
members of those unions can be trusted to remove them. They do not
need the assistance of a governmental agency in the exercise of their
rights.
In any case, we believe it a fundamental infringement on demo-
cratic riglits to deprive workers of the free right to choose representa-
tives in their union.
Mr. A KENS. Do I understand you to say that the officers of the union
are Communists or conspirators, the members of the union will re-
move them ? Was it something to that effect ?
Mr. Selly. I did not. I said officers of trade unions, like all other
persons in this country, are subject to all of our laws. If they are
guilty of violation of any criminal statute they can be punished for
such violation. That is what I said.
Senator Eastland. You do not think that the fact that a person is
an officeholder in a union is a criminal, that that should bar him ?
Mr. Selly. Is a criminal ?
Senator Eastland. Yes. Suppose a union has a notorious criminal
at its head.
Mr. Selly. Suppose a corporation has.
Senator Eastland. All right. Answer my question. Do you think
that should bar him from membership ?
Mr. Selly. I think that any criminal should be punished under the
provisions of the law.
Senator Eastland. Answer my question. I don't want to argue
with you. It is a "yes" or "no" answer, and it is not a loaded question.
Mr. Selly. Look, Mr. Senator-
Senator Eastland. Suppose a union-
Mr. Selly. You can direct me to answer questions but you can't
put the words in my mouth or tell me how to answer.
Senator Eastland. You can answer "yes" or "no." Suppose a
union has a notorious criminal at its head. Do you think he should be
barred by statute from being president of that union ?
Mr. Selly. Well, I am not an expert on law. I don't thinlv I would
deal with the problem in that way.
Senator Eastland. Go ahead.
Mr. .Selly. Any more than I would with a corporation executive
who is found guilty of a crime.
No. 2, all three bills limit the right of a union to adopt policies which
are not approved by the administration currently in power.
This again is undemocratic and contrary to the basic principles of
American democracy. The membership of a union should have the
right to determine its own policies so long as those policies are not il-
legal, just as all other organizations have the right to decide upon
the adoption of legal policies. Thus, leaders of the American Com-
munications Association have the right to favor higher wages in the
telegraph industry ; they have the right to favor higher or lower rates,
shorter hours, faster service in the telegraph industry. The members
of the American Communications Association have the right to de-
348 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
termine for themselves whether they will favor merger of the inter-
national communications carriers or oppose such merger. They have
the right to determine for themselves whether they will or will not
engage in political activities and if they decide to engage in political
activities, they have the right to decide for themselves what political
program they will support and what candidates they will sponsor.
The basic evil in these bills lies not only in the fact that particular
individuals in the Govermnent are given the right to decide whether
the policies sponsored by a union are permissible or impermissible.
Nor do we complain merely because of our feeling that the adminis-
tration of these laws may be sympathetic or unsympathetic to the
trade-union movement. We would oppose such legislation whether
the President of the United States were Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Lin-
coln, or Jefferson ; we would oppose such legislation whether the At-
torney General of the United States were Brownell, Frank Murphy, or
Joseph R. McCarthy. We would oppose such legislation whether it
were applied by the Subversive Activities Control Board or the Su-
preme Court of the United States.
It is not that we lack faith in our Government or in the jieople wlio
hold office ; it is rather because we have faith in our membership. We
recognize that the very meaning of a democratic form of government
is that the people must be permitted to choose their policies without
any interference from the Government regardless of the individuals
who may at finy particular moment make up that Government.
Senator Eastland. I want to ask a question right there. Isn't it
a fundamental right of government, of any government, to protect
itself?
Mr. Selly. I think so, yes.
Senator Eastland. Then if the government thinks that in a union
that is in sensitive work for that government its officials are conspiring
with a foreign government, bent on its overthrow, and its officials are
members of a conspiracy to overthrow that government by force and
violence, do you not think that that government has not only the
inherent right but the plain duty to protect itself?
Mr. Selly. The rights of a government to protect itself are spelled
out in the constitution. The rights of the people against arbitrary
or capricious abuse by the Government against the people are spelled
out in tlie Constitution and in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers did a lot of thinking about setting up this
Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the people against abuses
of government as well as to protect a government against the. abuses
of people.
Senator Eastland. Wliat are those? You say the powers of the
Government to protect itself are spelled out in the Constitution.
What are those powers spelled out in the Constitution?
Mr. Selly. The power to legislate, the police power, the power to
pass laws which state what is or is not a crime, the power to enforce
those powers.
Senator Eastland. Certainly. The power to legislate. Is not that
what we are doing here?
Mr. Selly. I think you are abusing the power to legislate. That
is my opinion.
Senator Eastland. I know you do.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 349
Mr. Selly. Certainly you have the power to legislate. I say that
this is bad legislation, and I am trying to prove it to you, but you
won't listen.
Senator Eastland. It is bad legislation because the Government
of the United States is taking steps to protect itself against officials
of organizations that are attempting to overthrow this Government?
Mr. Selly. I don't think that is the effect of this legislation. I think
the effect of this legislation is to deprive people, citizens of inalienable
rights to determine their own policies, to choose their own officers in
labor unions.
Senator Eastlaxd. Do you think the people
Mr. Selly. I think this legislation is unconscionable. I am not a
lawyer and I may be proven wrong.
Senator Eastland. Do you think that the people have a right to
elect Communists to control labor unions in this country ?
Mr. Selly. Again I am not a lawyer. I think they certainly have
that right.
Senator Eastland. They do today.
Mr. Selly. That is, as a legal matter.
Senator Eastland. That is the reason for this legislation, isn't it?
Mr. Selly. That may be your reason for this legislation.
Senator Eastland. But I say that is one of the reasons for this
bill, is it not? Whether it is valid or not, there is no point in dis-
cussing that, but that is one of the reasons.
Mr. Selly. That is one of the alleged reasons for the bill; yes.
Senator Eastland. Do you think that communism is a conspiracy
to overthrow this Govermnent ?
Mr. Selly. I am not going to get into a ]ihilosophic discussion with
you. Senator, about what communism is or is not.
Senator Eastland. It lays at the very heart of this bill, does it not ?
Mr. Selly. What lays at the heart of this bill as far as I have been
able to determine is an unconstitutional attempt to infringe on funda-
mental rights of workers to free, self -organization in unions of their
own choice.
Senator Eastland. You include in that Communists, do you not?
Mr. Selly. I don't understand that question. Senator. I am sorry.
Senator Eastland. Well, a Communist union.
Mr. Selly. I said before in answer to your question, do workers
have the right to elect a Communist, as I understand the law the
answer to that is, "Yes."
Senator Eastland. You do not think they should be deprived of
that right?
Mv. Selly. I don't think they should be deprived of their right to
elect whoever they please to represent them. I think I would rely
on the judgment of the workers rather than on, with all due respect,
rather than on the judgment of the Senate as to who should represent
workers, and certainly rather than on the judgment of employers.
Senator Eastland. If a union is Communist controlled, and if its
officers are using the power of that imion, and it is a great power in
many instances as it is in the ILWU, to promote the interests of a
foreign government to the detriment and to the injury of the United
States, do you think that the American Congress should permit that
43903—54 23
350 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
to stand, because we would be infringing on the rights of workers to
do as they please by not passing any legislation? Is that right?
Mr. Selly. I think that if all the if's that yon prefaced your con-
clusion with were the situation, the actual situation, tlie workers should
be permitted to exercise their right and in my judgment they would
exercise it, to prevent any leaders from acting against the interests
of the Nation, what they conceive to be the interests of the Nation,
which might not be the same thing as you conceive.
Senator Eastland. But you know, communism now is a secret
conspiracy. The heads of the unions involved refuse to make a clear
statement as to wliether they are Communists or not. They slink
around and hide behind the fifth amendment.
Mr. Selly. I am very sorry to hear that. Senator, I don't share
your contempt for the fifth amendment. I have respect for the fifth
amendment, like I have for the first and all the rest.
Senator Eastland. Even for traitors, do you not ?
Mr. Selly. I have no respect for traitors. And I have no respect
for people who attack the Constitution of the United States, any of
the amendments.
Senator Eastland. Is communism an attack on the Constitution of
the United States ?
Mr. Selly. I refuse to answer that question.
Mr. Arens. Don't you think there is an overriding public interest
whereby the mass of the people of the United States would say that
in the security interests of this country, we will not permit any one
segment of our society to elect to office in a labor organization or in
any designated organization, members of a consj^iracy?
Senator Eastland. What kind of conspiracy?
Mr. Arens. A conspiracy to destroy this Government.
Mr. Selly. As I say, you ask questions which are not susceptible of
a "yes" or "no" answer. There ai'e many assumptions in the question.
It is a little difficult to follow. I think I answered before, when the
Senator asked a similar question, that I am confident that workers
should be — that workers will, if permitted to continue in their present
free right to elect leaders of their own choice, in imions of their own
choice, will reject anyone who, in their opinion, and in their judgment,
and I would rely on this judgment, represented interests hostile to the
national interest.
Senator Eastland. Would that be true when the leaders refuse to
make a clean breast of their affiliation, and say, "If I answered that
question, it might tend to incriminate me" ?
Mr. Selly. The uiembers of my union are quite aware of the fact
that I have relied before hostile Senate committees in the past on my
constitutional rights, under the first and fifth amendments. They
have in the face of that knowledge elected me to office more than once.
Their judgment, apparently, differs from yours. They believe that
the invocation of a constitutional protection is not an ignoble thing but
may be a noble thing.
Mr. Arens. What you are saying is that they do not have access to
the security records that this committee has; is that correct?
Mr. Selly. That is not what I said. That is what you are saying.
]\Ir. Arens. The members of your union that voted for you did not
know whether or not you are a Communist ; did they ?
Mr. Selly. What the members of my union know about me
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 351
Mr. Arens. Just answer the question. Did the members of your
union, when they voted for you for president, did they know whether
or not you are a Communist ?
Mr. Selly. They know that I have given them what they conceive to
be honest, effective, militant, tough leadership over a long period of
time.
Mr. Arens. Yes, but did they know ?
Mr. Selly. And I am not afraid to take on a boss or a congressional
committee in the protection of my rights and their rights.
Mr. Arens. Did they know whether or not you were a Communist ?
Mr. Selly. I don't Imow everything they knew or did know wlien
they voted for me.
Mr. Arens. You say that the processes of the union will weed out
the undesirables. We want to test that now to see how those processes
can weed out the undesirables.
Mr. Selly. We are probably at the opposite poles as to what is
undesirable.
Mr. Arens. The committeee feels the Communists are undesirable.
Perhaps you have a different opinion.
Mr. Selly. I am not talking about the committee. I am talking
about you.
Mr. Arens. I think they are undesirable.
Mr. Selly. I am saying that we are at different poles as to what is
in the national interest. Apparently my membership does not believe
that anything I do is contrary to the interests of this Nation. I am
content to rely on their judgment and grateful that I don't have to
rely on yours.
Mr. Arens. Would you tell them that you are a Communist ?
Mr. Selly. I won't answer that question.
Mr. Arens. Of course you won't answer that question.
Senator Eastland. The answer was that he was protecting his
rights under the Constitution, and he was protecting the Constitution
of the United States wlien he pleaded the fifth amendment.
JNIr. Selly. That is right. I will tell you that I am shocked and
disturbed when members of a Senate committee choose to read im-
proper inferences into the invocation of a right that is a sacred
right in this country. Apparently you do not agree with the Supreme
Court.
Senator Eastland. Now let me ask you a question right there.
You say that you are shocked when the Senate committee reads
improper inferences into your use of the right under the Constitution.
Is that right?
Mr. Selly. That is right. That is what I said.
Senator Eastland. That is what you tell your membership, is it
not ?
That is the explanation you gave us as to your refusal to answer
this question of whether you are a Communist or not ?
Mr. Selly. My explanation to the membership — incidentally, I tell
the membership a lot of things that I would not testify to here before
a hostile committee.
Mr. Arens. Because you are not under oath ; is that correct ?
Mr. Selly. No ; not because I am not under oath. Because I think
the membership is entitled to the answers to some questions that I
don't think you are entitled to. That is why.
352 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Eastland. Are the membership entitled to
Mr. Selly. I am accountable to my members and not accountable
to you.
Senator Eastland. Is your membership entitled to a frank answer
as to whether or not you are a Communist ?
Mr. Selly. If I thought they were entitled to a frank answer, I
would ffive them a frank answer.
Senator Eastland. Well, are they entitled to it? Are they entitled
to a frank answer?
Mr. Selly. Yes ; I think my membership is.
Senator Eastland. Have you given that to them ?
Mr. Selly. I have.
Senator Eastt.and. What did you tell them?
Mr. Selly. I refuse to tell you. You are not a member of my
union. I don't have to account to you. I don't represent you for
collective bargaining.
Senator Eastland. You have frankly told your members, and you
are under oatli
Mr. Selly. I know I am under oath.
Senator Eastland. Whether or not vou are a Communist ; is that
right ?
Mr. Selly. That is right.
Mr. Arens. And what you told them was the truth, was it?
Mr. Selly. Yes ; what I told them was the truth.
Senator Eastland. Proceed.
Mr. Arens. You are speaking of the faith you have in your Govern-
ment in your statement. »
Mr. Selly. Of course mistakes will sometimes be made by the mem-
bers of our union, but the right to be wrong is also one of the demo-
cratic rights. There is no doubt that the membership of our unicm
or of any other union will be right much more often than it will be
wrong. We may further suggest that the membership of our union
or any other union is much more likely to be right more often than
any individual or small group of individuals whoever they mav be
who seek to exercise a political dictatorship over trade-union policies.
Mr. Arens. Before the members of your union can know in their
hearts how they want to vote, they have to know the facts as to who is
and who is not a Communist, do they not?
Mr. Selly. No. I don't know that they have to know that fact.
_ Mr. Arens. Well, if the membership of this American Communica-
tions Association wants to throw out the Communists, they have to
first know who are the Communists, isn't that correct?
Mr. Selly. That is one of the few reasonable statements that you
have made that I can agree with. It is logical.
Mr. Arens. But the members of the American Communications
Association and other Communist-penetrated labor organizations
don't always know who are the Communists, do they :'
Mr. Selly. I am not going to answer loaded questions.
Senator Eastland. That was a loaded question. You don't have to
answer it.
Mr. Arens. Let's rephrase the question, then.
^ Mr. Seij.y. Do me the courtesy of respecting my intelligence even
if you don't my opinions.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 353
Senator Eastland. Wait just a minute, now. I do not like those
side remarks. I told him you did not have to answer the question.
Mr. Arens. We will rephrase the question. The members of the
American Communications Association do not have access to the intel-
ligence reports which disclose who are and who are not Communists
in the American Communications Association, isn't that correct?
Mr. Selly. I guess it is correct. I would assume it.
Mr. Akens Well, then, how is it that the American Communications
Association members are going to throw the Communists out if they
do not Iniow who they are ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know if they are going to throw the Communists
out. That is something they will decide. I won't decide it. And I
don't think you will decide it. At least, I hope not.
Mr. Arens. Don't you think the Communists onght to be thrown
out ?
Mr. Selly. I think the membership has the right to elect whoever
they want to lead them.
Mr. Arens. Don't you think in that process they ought to be in-
formed who are the Communists ?
Mr. Selly. And to determine their own policies.
Senator Eastland. Proceed.
Were you ever an official of the CIO ?
Mr. Selly. I don't think I was an official. I was a member of the
executive board of the CIO by virtue of my office as president of an
affiliated union.
Senator Eastland. When did you lose that?
Mr. Selly. We were expelled from CIO in — I can't remember the
date exactly — 1950.
Mr. Arens. The spring of 1950?
Mr. Selly. The spring of 1950.
Senator Eastland. Did the CIO set up a rival union ?
Mr. Selly. Well, tliat question can't be answered categorically. Not
on the occasion of our expulsion. There was a union which after we
were expelled claimed jurisdiction in our held, and did attempt to
raid us.
The bills confer on the Government the right to investigate unions.
The private affairs of unions, their meetings, policy discussions, col-
lective bargaining strategy, strike tactics, inner union politics, all
these would become legitimate fields for investigation and snooping
by agents of the SACB or the Attorney General. Employers would
use labor spies for the purpose of reporting and snooping and claim
justification for the activities under this legislation. The Attorney
General, the SACB and this committee could engage in endless fishing
expeditions into its affairs and embarrass, harass, and weaken a mili-
tant union.
Senator Eastland. You say this committee could do what?
Mr. Selly. The Attorney General, the SACB, and this committee,
this is in the event of passage of one of these bills, could engage in
endless fishing expeditions into its affairs.
Senator Eastland. Which provision of the bills do you have refer-
ence to that will give this committee that power?
Mr. Selly. This committee apparently has the power to conduct
hearings on legislation, and it was our opinion it would also have
the power to conduct investigations if the bills became law.
354 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Eastlaxd. Of course. But does a bill confer some special
power on the committee? Are you speaking generally now or are you
speaking of a particular provision in the bill ?
Mr. Selly. The bill sets up such loose definitions, definitions sus-
ceptible of use by malicious, self-interested persons, as to make it
possible
Senator Eastland. What section are you talking about ?
Mr. Selly. I will have to go through all three bills.
To answer your question, I want to read from an article which ap-
peared in the Nation of November 20, 1953.
Senator Eastland. Does it give the particular section?
Mr. Selly. That is right. That is why I am reading from it, be-
cause it is a legal analysis of the language of the bill.
The title of the article is "H-Bomb for Unions, the Butler Bill,"
by Laurent B. Frantz.
Coming to the question of language, and why I say the language is
loosely drawn, here is what the lawyer said about it :
What test is proposed for identifying Communist domination in unions?
Then he quotes from the bill :
"Wlienever it is charged that any 'labor oi-ganization' * * * is substantially-
directed, dominated, or controlled by any individual or individuals (whether
officers of such labor organization or not) * * * "
Now addressing himself to that language, he says :
Let it be noted at the outset tliat the persons whose influence is relied on to
show "Cnnimunist domination" need not have any defined or objectively verifiable
authority. Their control need not be complete, only "substantial." Thus, the
decision may rest on a mere hunch as to how much some persons have been in-
fluenced by others. In any such speculative and intuitive judgment, the con-
trolling factor is likely to be the prejudices of the fact tinders — in this case the
members of the Subversive Activities Control Board.
By the use of this language, moreover, unions are virtually required to judge
all proposals put before them, not on their merits but on their sponsorship. Accep-
tance of any proposal which turned out to be of a Communist origin — even though
the vmion was unaware of this fact and even though the proposal was cpiite
unobjectionable on its own merits — might lay tlie union open to a charge of being
"substantially directed, dominated, or controlled" by a Communist minority
within the organization.
He then goes on to the next language which he considers susceptible
of abuse, because it is loosely drawn.
Senator Eastland. The question was. What section conferred par-
ticular power on this committee? You charged that this committee
could go on an endless fishing expedition because of certain provisions
in the bill,
Mr. Selly. The committee can go on fishing expeditions without the
bill.
Senator Eastland. Certainly. Of course we can.
Mr. Selly. But it is given a field for it, in our opinion, by virtue
of the language of the particular bills.
Senator Eastland. That the committee is?
Mr. Selly. Pardon me ?
Senator Eastland. That that language in the bill gives this commit-
tee some special power ?
Mr. Selly. No, it isn't the language of the bill that gives you the
sf)ecial power ; it is the powers of Congress.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 355
Mr. Arens. I wonder if he could help us by suggesting language
that would drive the Communists out of the labor organizations.
Assuming that this language might be subject to some criticism, tell
us what language you would suggest to put into this legislation so that
we could preclude Communists from being in control of labor organi-
zations.
Mr. Sellt. No, I can't. Are you interested in the rest of this
analysis ?
Senator Eastland. If you would point to some language, as you
have stated there, in the bill that gives some special power to this
committee. That is what you stated in your statement. I just wanted
you to verify that statement.
Mr. Selly. That isn't what I said in the statement. You are strain-
ing it in that. Here is what the statement said :
The Attorney General, the SACB. and this committee could engage in endless
fishing expeditions into the affairs of the union and embarrass, weaken, a militant
union.
Senator Eastland. You are not referring to the bill, then, when you
go into that ?
Mr. Selly. Yes, I am referring to the bill because the committee,
having these powers to investigate a union, could, by virtue of the
provisions of this bill — and it is in our opinion improper, broad, gener-
alized language — harass, embarrass, and weaken a militant union. I
am telling you what that language is.
Senator Eastland. An investigation by a congressional committee
of the union that we thought was Communist-controlled, would that
be improper? Would that be an improper exercise of congressional
power ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know.
Senator Eastland. What?
Mr. Selley. I don't know the answer to that.
Senator Eastland. You do not know?
Mr. Selly. No ; I don't know.
Senator Eastland. Well, you evidently thought it was.
Mr. Selly. I think it is an improper exercise of congressional
power if you utilize the provisions of any bill to deprive workers of
their democratic right to determine their own policies and elect their
own officers. I think that would be an improper power under any
bill.
Senator Eastland. Regardless of what the officers were engaged in ?
Whether conspiracy against
Mr. Selly. Regardless of what you thought the officers were en-
gaged in.
Senator Eastland. Answer my question.
Mr. Selly. Look, I'll answer it in my language.
Senator Eastland. No, you are not because I have not gotten
through with my question. If you are going to testify you are going
to act right. Do you hear that ?
Mr. Selly. I understand it, and I have rights, too.
Senator Eastland. You are going to act right. Do you hear that.
x\nd we are not going to take any abuse off you. You appear here
as a tough guy, a bad guy.
Mr. Selly. I am not a tough guy, and I am not going to take any
abuse from this committee that I don't have to take.
356 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Eastland. You are going to answer questions and you are
going to answer them right.
Mr. Selly. I will answer them in my language.
Senator Eastland. What was the question?
(The pending question was read by the reporter as follows:
"Senator Eastland. Regardless of what the officers were engaged
in, whether conspiracy against ")
Senator Eastland. The United States or not?
The question was : Would workers have a right to promote a union,
to promote and elect officers who were engaged in a conspiracy to
destroy the United States ?
Mr. Selly. In the absence of any judicial determination of an
illegal act, I would rely on the judgment of the workers and not on
any investigating committee to determine what policy should be.
Senator Eastland. Suppose there had been a determination, then,
by a judicial body set up under the law^s of the United States that
they were Communists ? Then w^ould they have such a right ?
Mr. Selly. If the law limited their right, it would limit their
rights. I would think it would be improper. I think it is uncon-
stitutional.
Senator Eastland. You think it would be improper?
Mr. Selly. I don't say it can't be passed, I am afraid it can.
Senator Eastland. That is not what I am talking about. I am
talking abont the rights of workers, whether it can be passed or not.
Mr. Selly. And my answer is that I would rely on the rights of
the workers, on their democratic rights and on their judgment to de-
termine their policies and their leadership, and I would not substitute
that for anybody else's judgment.
Senator Eastland. You think, then, that if there had been a judicial
determination that the officers of the union were engaged in con-
spiracy to overthrow^ the Government of the United States and were
members of the Communist Party that the workers would still have
the democratic right to select them to lead them ?
Mr. Selly. Obviously they have their right. Equally obviously,
they wouldn't exercise it under those circumstances.
Senator Eastland. Do you think they should have that right?
Mr. Selly. I think they should have the legal right to vote for
whoever they please, yes ; unequivocally.
Senator Eastland. You may proceed with Mr. Selly, Mr. Arens,
and I wdll be back in about 20 or 25 minutes.
Mr. Arens. Where are we, Mr. Selly ?
Mr. Selly. Incidentally, if the committee is interested in this
analysis, which goes to the specific language of the bill, I would be
glad to put it into the record.
Mr. Arens. Will you kindly proceed now, Mr. Selly ?
Mr. Selly. The third objection we have to all 3 bills: all 3 bills
seek to limit the right of the union to adopt collective-bargaining
policies of its own and to exercise the right to strike against intoler-
able working conditions.
Emjoloyers who have urged adoption of these laws have engaged in
much loose talk about "political strikes," "sabotage" and "espionage,"
and have sought to create the impression that the American trade-
union movement is honeycombed with saboteurs and spies.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE EST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 357
The truth of the matter is, of course, quite different. We do not
hesitate to match the patriotism of our members against the patriotism
of any other group in this country. We do not know of a single
authenticated instance in the recent history of the United States in
which an American union called a political strike. We defy anyone
to present evidence of a single instance of espionage in the United
States connected even remotely with the operations of a trade union.
We do not know of a single instance of political sabotage in the
United States encouraged, sponsored, or supported by any trade
union. The very fact that such false charges must be relied upon to
justify the bills is, in itself, the best argument possible to establish
that the bills are unnecessary.
So long as a union commits no illegal acts it has the right to adopt
such collective-bargaining policies and to engage in such strike ac-
tivities as its members may wish. In the absence of a violation of
law it cannot be prohibited from engaging in strikes because some
employer or Government official may charge that the strike is a "po-
litical strike" or that the collective-bargaining activities are "Com-
munist activities."
In this connection, one of the most dangerous aspects of the present
legislation may be considered. These bills may be invoked at any
time and a finding that the union has violated the law may be based
on current activities or on activities engaged in many years ago.
Such laws may be invoked without notice in the midst of collective-
bargaining activities. Even in the midst of a strike they may be
used, as indeed they are intended to be used, as an employer weapon in
the economic struggle against unions.
4. All three bills offer no adequate check on arbitrary and capri-
cious official action.
Under the Butler bill the arbitrary action of a single individual,
the Attorney General, responding to the charge of an employer or in-
former or a disgruntled union member, is enough to destroy any
trade union since the mere filing of a complaint results in the auto-
matic loss of bargaining rights.
This particular section of the law reduces to such an absurdity the
American concept, fundamental American concept of the presump-
tion of innocence until proven guilty, under this section you are proven
guilty until proven innocent. It is like Alice in Wonderland where
they say "Cut off their heads" or "Lynch them until you find out who
they are."
No single individual, no matter who he is should have such power
of life or death over a trade union. The elimination of this pro-
vision from the bill cannot remove this objectionable feature for, in
any event, a small group of men, whether it be the Subversive Activ-
ities Control Board or a new Government agency, would have the
power to destroy a trade union by making a finding that it comes
within the provisions of the bill.
Judicial review of such findings is completely inadequate in any
practical sense. Such review takes months, and sometimes years, so
that no effective judicial action is possible until the damage has been
completed.
5. All three bills set up standards of permissible conduct which
are highly improper.
358 suBVERsrv'E influence in certain labor organizations
In this connection we wish to note that even if clear and specific
standards of permissible conduct were set up we would oppose the
bill for all of the reasons mentioned above. A Government-controlled
trade-union movement is un-American, whether that movement be
controlled through the use of exact standards or ambiguous standards.
The ambiguity of the standards here, liowever, compounds the evils
of these laws. Loose phrases, such as "subversive activities," "Com-
munist front organization," "world Communist movement" have no
clearly defined meaning.
Senator McCarthy, for example, with the apparent approval of the
Eepublican National Com.mittee, has publicly accused the last 5 Dem-
ocratic administrations of "20 years of treason." Clearl}^, acts which
he considers to be treasonable were considered patriotic by Presidents
Roosevelt and Truman and their associates.
At this point I want to read from an editorial which appeared
today in the New York Times, and which goes to this question of
loose and indefinable standards and the smear technique. On the
editorial page of today's Times, under the heading "Mr. McLeod's
Demotion," they say :
Secretary of State Dulles is to be coucrfttulated on deprhinii- Scott McLeod
of his authority over Department of State personnel. Mr. McLeod is partly
responsible for the deplorable morale of the State Department and diplomatic
service today.
There is no question of Mr. McLeod's g'ood intentions, sincerity, or patrio-
tism. It is taken for granted that he meant well and thought he was serving
his country wliile he was, in fact, doing a great disservice. The core of his
belief is that a Foreign Service or State Department employee who even comes
iirider suspicion — rightly or wrongly — ceases to be of value and could conceiv-
ably become a danger. Hence, the employee must be removed, and those who
stay miist remain above suspicion.
The trouble with this philosopliy is that we live in an age of suspicion and
fear. There is a hypersensitivity about communism and, above all, a tendency
to define subversion so broadly that it even comprehends frankness, individu-
ality, dissent, originality, liberal thinking, and similar qualities tliat provide
the true atmosphere of democracy. On the negative side this brings a tendency
to turn a blind eye on trends that lead toward fascism.
That isn't the complete article. It goes on to express the hope that
Senator McCarthy will not be successful in reversing the position of
Secretary of State Dulles.
As an example of how the language of the bill might be abused, and
of the looseness of terms and the lack of precise definition, I refer you
to a statement made by Mr. Wilcox, vice president in charge of labor
relations for Western Union, in his testimony before this committee,
who called the union shop un-American.
The Butler bill provides that —
whenever it is charged that any labor organization * * * is substantially
directed, dominated or controlled by any individuals * * * who have consis-
tently aided, supported, or in any manner contributed to or furthered the activity
of (the Communist Party or of any Communist-action organizations or Commu-
nist-front organizations)
the union may be deprived of its bargaining rights. In other words,
if a trade-union officer follows a policy for shorter hours, higher mini-
mum wage, rent control, guaranteed annual wage, et cetera, and the
Communist Party espouses a similar policy, his union may be
destroyed under this strange doctrine of guilt by parallelism. When
we consider the position traditionally taken by some employers in this
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 359
country that all trade unions are "Communist" the danger of such
legislation is evident.
For example, in December 1951, the United States Chamber of
Commerce said :
The CIO has never rid itself of its Marxist economics. Virtually every impor-
tant speech and publication * * * jg replete with class-conscious hatred of
employers, and is designed to intensify the class struggle.
A report made for the Timken EoUer Bearing Co., in February
1953, shows "a surprising coincidence of attitudes between CIO official
publications and Connnunist papers * * * the CIO follows the Com-
munist Part}^ line with the j^ersistence of a shadow."
Nor is the American Federation of Labor immune. Indeed, the
preamble of the AFL constitution might easily be considered adher-
ence to the Communist Party line under the doctrine of parallelism.
It states :
A struggle is going on in all the nations of the civilized world hetVv'een the
oppressors and the oppressed of all countries, a struggle between the capitalist
and the laborer which grows in intensity from year to year and will work disas-
trous results to the toiling millions if they are not combined for mutual protec-
tion and benefit.
A detailed analysis of these bills could, of course, disclose many
other objections to the legislation — provisions which would destroy
or cripple the democratic trade-union movement. Such an analysis,
however, could do little more than buttress the basic conclusions
reached above, for these bills are wrong in principle. Any legislation
which seeks to impose governmental control upon the leadership and
policies of a trade union is inconsistent with a free labor movement.
The next section goes into the question of who is in support of these
bills, the paternity of these measures.
Mr. Arexs. There is not much doubt in yom- mind as to who is
against these bills, is tJiere? Do you know of any Communists oc
Communist organizations who are for the bill ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know of any labor organization who is for the
bill.
Mr. Arens. Labor organizations testified yesterday for the bill.
Mr. Selly. What labor organization was it ?
Mr. Duffy. The National Independent Union Council.
Mr. Arens. Go ahead.
Mr. Selly. The A. F. of L,, CIO, whatever brotherhoods have ex-
pressed themselves, railroad brotherhood, every group in organized
labor who has expressed their feelings on the bills have expressed
as violent opinions as I have expressed today, and for the same reasons.
No one person may rightly feel any pride of authorship in any of
these bills. In fact, they represent the cooperative effort of the corpo-
rations, acting individually and through their own powerful lobby-
ing organizations, the National Association of Manufacturers and
the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Arens. Would you prove that statement for the committee?
Mr. Selly. The proof is that corporation executives, including NAM
and the Chamber of Commerce, have periodically over a period of
years proposed amending the Taft-Hartley Act, originally amending
the Wagner Act.
Mr. Arens. Do you have any information that the National Asso-
ciation of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, or any associa-
360 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE EST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
tion of manufacturers prepared this legislation before the committee?
Mr. Selly. I think they influenced it by their publications and their
appearances here.
Mr. Arens The result is that, on that basis, you say, in effect, here,
that they are the cooperative effort of the corporations and their
powerful lobbying organizations ?
Mr. Selly. I say no one outfit has exclusively the authorship of
the bill. We feel that NAM, the Chamber of Commerce, and big busi-
ness
Mr. Arens. You prove to this committee, and you are the man
■who does not like violent assumptions, something that is not pinned
down, you prove to the public, the press, the reporter here, or any-
body, that the NAM, or Chamber of Commerce, or powerful lobbying
organizations had a thing to do with this legislation. You made
that charge and I think you ought to prove it.
Mr. Selly. I will prove it. I will make j-ou happy.
The McCarran bill, S. 23, was originally introduced immediately
following a series of hearings lield by that committee, and among
those who testified at those hearings were representatives of the West-
ern Union Telegraph Co., which was then currently engaged in col-
lective-bargaining disputes with my union.
At that hearing the opinion of the witnesses for the company was
solicited in regard to proposed legislation, to cure what the committee
said were some evils.
Mr. Waters, counsel for Western Union, obliged the committee by
proposing specific language which is very close to the language that
finally was incorporated in the McCarran bill, S. 23.
Similarly, just the other day before this committee, a Mr. Ellery
Stone testified in support of the Goldwater bill and made certain
proposals of his own. That is, in addition to those that we found
incorporated in the bill. He fully supported those measures and gave
his support to the main features of these bills.
As far as the NAM or the Chamber of Commerce are concerned, I
don't have before me the record of their writings, but I am familiar
-enough with them to be able to state that the record of their writings
shows that over a period of years they have been proposing language,
if not identical, very similiar to the language incorporated in these
bills.
Mr. Arens. So, on that basis, you say that these groups now are
the ones that have actually brought out these bills ?
Mr. Selly. No ; I say they influenced.
Mr. Arens. You say in your statement they are the prime movers
in the formulation of these proposed measures. You are the man who
does not like this type of concept of guilt by association.
Mr. Selly. Let's see what I do say.
Every concept incorporated in these bills mirrors desires first ex-
pressed in the publications of these organizations or in the public state-
ments of their spokesmen.
Fortunately, the genesis of these bills is something of a matter of
public record. That record shows that the employers in our own
industry, the communications industry, are among the prime movers
in the formulation of these i)roposed measures.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 361
I have just oriven you an example of the cooperation of one of the
companies in the suggestions that were finally incorporated in the
McCarran bill.
Among other corporation executives, spokesmen for the American
Cable and Radio Corp., a subsidiary of the giant International Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., and the monopoly Western Union Telegraph
Co. have appeared before this and other Senate bodies as long ago as
1951. They advanced certain legislative proposals to answer their
own private union-busting, profit-seeking needs. These proposals
are now to be found in the three bills before you. The employers seek
to justify them on the baseless claim that they are essential to the
national security.
The Nation would have been served far better if the qualifications
of such companies as I. T. and T. and Western Union to speak on ques-
tions involving the national interest and their true motives in seeking
such legislation had been investigated. For the fact of the matter is
that both these commercial giants do not come into court with clean
hands, but, rather, with records reeking with violations of national
interest, violations of the rights of labor, and violations of solemn
commitments made to Congress itself, and to other agencies of our
Government.
Mr. Arens. You have gotten into the question of motives here. Is
the only motive on which you oppose these bills the motive of the
interest of the workers, or do you have any other motive ?
Mr. Selly. I oppose thes^ bills because I think they are undemo-
cratic, antidemocratic, and deprive workers of rights essential to have
a free labor movement.
Mr. Arens. Would this legislation hurt you in any way if this was
enacted ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know.
Mr. Arens. If it deprives Communists of being in labor organiza-
tions, drives Communists out of labor organizations, do you think it
might hurt you personally?
Mr. Selly. I refuse to answer that question.
Mr. Arens. Who worked on this statement? You said "This is our
statement on behalf of the American Communications Association."
Who prepared this statement? Are you the sole author of this
statement ?
Mr. Selly. No ; I am not the sole author of this statement.
Mr. Arens. Can you tell us who all worked on this statement ?
Mr. Selly. Yes.
Mr. Arens. How many different people?
Mr. Selly. Mr. Kehoe, Secretary-Treasurer of the International
Union.
Mr. Arens. He was identified as a Communist before the Internal
Security Subcommittee.
Mr, Selly. And Victor Rabinowitz, counsel for the union.
Mr. Arens. Do you know whether or not he is a Communist?
Mr. Selly. I refuse to answer that question.
Mr. Arens. And then you ? You worked on the statement, too, did
you not ?
Mr. Selly. That is right.
As in the fashion these days, spokesmen for both these companies
had the effrontery to wrap their antidemocatic, anti- American legis-
362 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
lative proposals in the American flag. This is a bhxsphemy, and the
record categorically proves it.
The fact is that I. T. and T. has a notorious record of dealings with
fascist dictatorships. Sosthenes Behn, president of I. T. and T.,
visited Hitler at Berchtesgaden and had a chummy relationship with
Francisco Franco and maintained his Spanish properties throughout
the war. The head of I. T. and T.'s German subsidiaries, Gerhardt
Alois Westrick, was chased out of this country in 1940 (after war
had broken out in Europe). He was here attached as a commercial
counselor to the German Embassy, but maintaining a residence under
an assumed name and organizing for the Nazis. He left the United
States in a great hurry when he and his Nazi activities were exposed
by the New York Herald Tribune.
I. T. and T. had cartel arrangements and exchanged patents with
such Nazi firms as Siemens and Halske which had the monopoly on
manufacture of electrical equipment for the gas ovens used by the
Nazis to exterminate hundreds of thousands of human beings.
Mr. Arens. Are you not getting on guilt by association here?
Mr. Selly. I don't think so.
The subsidiaries of I. T, and T. in Germany and in neutral coun-
tries gave direct aid and assistance to the German war effort at a
time when our boys were fighting and dying in the war against the
Nazis. These intertwined relationships continued throughout the
war.
When, after the war broke out, the Iron Guard took over Rumania
for Hitler, I. T. and T. cooperated with the Iron Guard. Later it sold
the Rumanian telephone system. The newspapers at the time ex-
pressed great surprise at the ability of I. T. and T. to do business with
a Nazi-dominated country and to get paid off in United States funds.
Mr. Arens. Why is it you seem to condemn the Nazis all the time,
whom we all condemn, but you do not condemn anybody else? Why
don't you condemn the Communists ?
Mr. Sellt. You condemn whom you want and I will condemn
whom I want.
Mr. Arens. I want the the record to be clear. You and I are both
condemning the Nazis, but only one of us is going to also condemn
the Communists.
Mr. Selly. I am making a point in this testimony.
Mr. Arens. I want to make a point, too,
Mr. Selly. That is fine. You made it. I am making a point that
when a representative of I. T. and T. comes before this committee, as
Mr. Stone did, and gives his qualifications to testify, unfortunately
he didn't give us all of his qualifications.
Mr. Arens. Give us some of your qualifications.
Mr. Selly. Let me finish. It would be helpful to know some of his
other qualifications.
Mr. Arens. It would be helpful to know some of your qualifica-
tions, too, but you will not tell us about your background and asso-
ciations.
Mr. Selly. If Mr. Stoue will come before this committee and testify
that he has a long and notorious record for union busting and scare-
birding, he would be telling the truth because it is a matter of record
in the industry, and every worker in the industry, in the international
communications field, knows it.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 363
Mr. Arens. But, by the same token, do you not think this committee
ought to be able to try to ascertain who it is that speaks for the Ameri-
can Communications Association ?
Mr. Selly. Yes, you are trying to
Mr. Arens. Whether or not they have a Communist record, a Com-
munist background ?
Mr. Selly. You are trying to ascertain — — . Wliatever you are
trying to ascertain, I don't know.
Mr. Arens. We are trying to ascertain who it is that is speaking
for the American Communications Association, whether it is Com-
munists, saboteurs, or who they are.
Mr. Selly. I speak for the American Communications Association.
Mr. Arens. Who are you ? Are you a Communist ? You will not
tell us, will you ? Of course, we know. Go ahead.
Mr. Selly. I don't know what you know.
And what of Western Union's claim to patriotism ? Though not in
the same class as the I. T. & T. international octopus, Western Union
established its own sad record of violating the national interest during
the war, and since.
I will tell you why we find it necessary to say these things. Our
membership is having its patriotism and integrity constantly made bad
by people who appear before this committee and make them bad.
Mr. Arens. You are mistaken, I think. I think the only people
whose motives have been impugned are the relatively few who have
been identified by live witnesses under oath as Communists. The
record of the subcommittee is clear that we are not impugning the
motives of the vast rank and file of the American Communications
Association who are led by the Communists.
Mr. Selly. The record is not clear in that regard.
Mr. Arens. We will make it clear now.
Mr. Selly. Are you testifying for the companies ?
Mr. Arens. I am not testifying for anybody.
Mr. Selly. I will tell you that in the record of the last hearings
before the IMcCarran committee the integrity and patriotism of a
whole mmiber of shop stewards, which represents a great number of
people, was impugned, and they don't like it.
Mr. Arens. If the integrity of a whole group of shop stewards was
impugned, and it was wrong, we are sorry about it. But the only peo-
ple we want to impugn are the Communists. But you don't want to
talk about Communists.
Go ahead.
Mr. Selly. And it is both I. T. & T. and Western Union who are
today engaged in an all-out effort to extend their depredations of the
national interest by attempting to foist on Congress and the American
people a new and devastating plan for a monopoly in the international
record communications field — a plan harmful to the national defense
establishment, harmful to the business community, the public, and
harmful to the workers in the industry.
Therein lies the explanation for the legislative proposals they have
advanced and which are now incorporated in the bills under con-
sideration. In order to pursue their single-minded goal they must
eliminate any union which stands in their way, especially our organ-
ization which has for nearly 20 j^ears stood as an impregnable bulwark
364 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
in defense of the interests of its members and in defense of the public
interest against these marauding corporations.
That the real aim of I. T. & T. and Western Union is not to protect
the Nation or to eliminate subversives, but to smash democratic union-
ism, is clear to all but the blind, the bought, or the bedeviled — and it,
too, is on the record.
Mr. Arens. Are all corporations marauding or are certain corpora-
tions marauding?
]Mr. Selly. ]\Iost of the corporations I know are marauding.
Mr. Arexs. Why is that ?
Mr, Selly. I feel somewhat like Jesus Christ must have felt when
he said, in the parables, that sooner a camel will go through the eye
of a needle than a rich man will enter the kingdom of heaven.
jSIr. Arens. You, of course, are pursuing a Christian life, so you
will be sure of entering the kingdom of heaven?
Mr. Selly, That is a very improper question for you to ask, very
improper, and I will not answer it.
Sir. Arens. Whj^ is it that all corporations are marauding?
Mr. Selly, I don't know that all corporations are marauding, but
I know very few that are not marauding in the sense that I am describ-
ing here.
Mr. Arens. Is that because all of the bad people happen to be with
the corporations ; or why is that ?
Mr. Selly. Let me give you a simple lesson on economics. It is
because corporations are in business to make as much profit as they
can, and to make as much profit as they can they do it too often at the
expense of the workers employed by them, and the public,
Mr. Arens. Why do they do that ?
Mr. Selly. Because they want profits.
Mr. ilRENS. Why do thej^ want profits ?
Mr. Selly. Why do they want profits ?
Mr. Arens. Yes. Why do the bad people want profits?
Mr. Selly, I didn't say the}^ were bad people. I said they were
marauding corporations. They may be nice people. They may be
kind to their folks.
Mr. Arens. But they maraud on the workers?
Mr, Selly. Generally speaking, yes.
jMr. Arens. Is that because of the profit system, the free-enterpHse
system that makes people bad ?
Mr. Selly. That has a lot to do with it,
Mr, Arens, How much does it have to do with it, the free-enter-
prise system?
Mr, Selly. I don't know what the free-enterprise system is. I
don't see any free-enterprise system in this country. But the system
which permits corporatiaons to achieve such aggregations of power
that they can
Mr. Arens. It is the system that we ought to change? Is that
correct? Instead of changing the people we should change the
system ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know what you want to change.
Mr. Arens. Do you want to change the people and make them all
kind, or do you want to change the system ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 365
Mr. Selly. I want to change the relationshii? between the amount
of effort put into production by workers and the reward they get for
it. I think they ought to get more reward.
Mr. Arexs. Woukl you destroy the capitalistic system?
Mr. Selly. I didn't get that.
Mr. Aeens. Woukl you abolish the capitalistic system?
Mr. Selly. I don't have the power to abolish
Mr. Arens. I say would you if you could ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know. I don't know.
Mr. Arens. Are you opposed to the capitalistic system ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know what you mean by those words. Let me
tell you ; you see, I am not the only one who thinks that most corpora-
tions, the large corporations, in America could be characterized as
marauding.
Mr. Arens. I know you have characterized them as marauding, but
1 want you to tell me why they are marauding.
Mr. Selly. The Temporary National Economic Committee, investi-
gating concentration of economic power in the United States, gave
this description of the dilemma with which the Koosevelt administra-
tion was confronted in getting war surplus manufactured. This is
the Temporary National Economic Committee. You might not credit
what they say, if you believe like McCarthy, that we had 20 years of
treason. You will say that the head was a traitor. I don't think so.
He said this :
Speaking bluntly, the Government and the public are "over a barrel" when it
comes to dealing with business in time of war or other crisis. Business refuses
to work, except on terms which it dictates. It controls the natural resources, the
liquid assets, the strategic position in the country's economic structure, and its
technical equipment and knowledge of processes. The experience of the First
World War now apparently being repeated, indicates that business will use this
control only if it is "paid properly." In effect, this is blackmail. * * *
This was not said by the Communist Party or any party, but by the
Temporary National Economic Committee after a voluminous study
of the situation which the administration was confronted with.
Mr. Arens. The thing I don't agree with is why the marauding and
all is on the part of the corporations.
Mr. Selly. I understand your tender solicitude for the corpora-
tions, but you must understand my tender solicitude for the people I
represent, the workers. I think too much of the slice is going to
the employers and too little to the workers. I am going to do what
I can, with my members, to change that relationship.
Mr. Arens. How do you propose to change it ?
Mr. Selly. By collective bargaining.
Mr. Arens. You propose to change it by abolishing the capitalistic
system ?
Mr. Selly. No. By organizing and negotiating and fighting, where
necessary, for the appropriate and proper demands determined upon
by my membership. That is how I propose to change that imbal-
ance which I spoke of.
Mr. Arens. Where are we now ?
Mr. Selly. We are on the TNEC, which says in langauge even
more precise than mine why they w^ere suspicious, during the war, of
large corporations.
43903—54— — 24
366 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. DuFFT. "VVlio was the head of that committee ?
Mr. Selly. My recollection is that it was then Senator O'Mahoney
who headed the committee.
In order to save time, I am going to skip a few pages which deal
with the question of what we consider to be the real motives of the
corporations which we say are not desirous to protect the national
interests but, rather, the desire to protect their profit position and to
weaken the union if possible.
In connection with that, and again going to the question of the
looseness of the language in definition, Mr. Wilcox, who testified for
Western Union, was fortunately very candid in dealing with this ques-
tion. Let me quote his language instead of trying to interpret it.
In a most revealing statement, Mr. Wilcox declared :
It is so hard for me to distingriiish between what might be termed a good union
practice from a union standpoint and some of these acts which we might feel are
subversive from a communistic angle.
Mr. Arens. You think Mr. Wilcox is a bad man for saying that?
Is that correct ?
Mr. Selly. No, I didn't say that.
Mr. Arens. Do you think he was greedy?
Mr. Selly. I think he was refreshingly candid for saying that. I
think it was an honest expression of a doubt.
Mr. Arens. What is your opinion of Mr. Wilcox? Is he part of
this marauding corporation?
Mr. Selly. My relationship with Mr. Wilcox doesn't depend on
our scratching each other's back.
Mr. Arens. I didn't ask you that. I asked whether or not he is part
of this marauding process.
Mr. Selly. He is an officer of the Western Union Telegraph Co.,
who, in my opinion, does business, within his rights, to protect the
interests of the company.
Mr. Arens. Don't you think he has any concern for the workers?
The thing I cannot quite understand is this emphasis that you place
on this class struggle, and this struggle between corporations and the
workers. Are they not all part of a team which works together for
the common good, or is there, of necessity, to be this conflict, this
hatred ?
Mr. Selly. When did you last work in a shop ? I ask that seriously.
Mr. Arens. I have probably earned more money in manual labor
than I have earned by my brains. I worked mj^self through 7 years of
college, my friend, on a starvation diet, and I have no hatred in my
heart for the men with whom I worked. We got along fine.
INIr. Selly. Neither has the average worker, and neither have I.
And that is not the issue. But if you had that background jow under-
stand that the average worker knows, on the basis of his experience,
that whatever Mr. Wilcox's personal attributes may be, and they may
be many, his job, his function as an officer of the company, forces him
to do certain things in the interest of the company which the workers
consider against their interests. That is where the conflict arises.
Mr. Arens. Why is that? Wliy couldn't Mr. Wilcox or anybody
in a corporation, on management side, also have in his heart some con-
cern for his associates who are characterized by you as the workers
distinct from the management ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 367
Mr. Selly. Maybe he has that concern in his heart. But if he
were to express it by making a generous wage offer Avhen we go into
negotiations a month from now that woukl carry a lot more weight
with the workers and would soften the apparent sharpness of their
feeling toward the company.
Mr. Arens. Then the fact that he does not make a more generous
wage offer, I assume you conclude, indicates that he is hardhearted?
Is that correct ?
Mr. Selly, I don't know what it will indicate because I don't want
to preclude the fact that he may make a generous wage offer.
Mr. Arens. He may be a good man, after all ? Is that correct ?
Mr. Selly. He may turn out to be not only a good man but a good
labor-relations expert. He may promote industrial peace and se-
curity of mind among people by making the highest offer possible
to the workers.
Mr. Arens. Has the thought ever crossed your mind that there are
certain groups in this country that like to lay emphasis on mass, class
struggles? They speak in terms of masses of people against other
people, and this warfare among groups within the society that we
have. Have you ever thought about that ?
Mr. Selly. Well, my experience is limited to the trade-union move-
ment where, in connection with groups of workers and how they feel,
it tells me this, that where an employer treats with his employees in
such a manner that they consider it fair and equitable, and this hap-
pens, the employees do not hate that employer and they do not hate
that corpoiation, but they have a respect that is mutual on both sides.
Mr. Arens. Isn't their objective, then, to get people to have softer
hearts and to be more considerate rather than to intensify the class
struggle ?
Mr. Selly. I wouldn't want to rely on the softening of hearts. I
would rather rely on the appeal to reason. I think it should be the
intent of collective bargaining to create a reason.
Mr. Arens. And an atmosphere of understanding?
Mr. Selly. Mutual respect, reason, uii.derstanding, where, on the
one hand, the union recognizes the problems that the company is con-
fronted with, and, on the other hand, and from my view, more im-
portant
Mr. Arens. As an intelligent man, don't you realize that the Com-
munist Party lays terrific emphasis on class struggle, and on division
rather than upon the thing we have been talking about here, coopera-
tion, understanding, and seeking what is right, rather than who is
right?
Mr. Selly. Well, I will not answer for the Communist Party be-
cause I can't.
Mr. Arens. You read about the Communist Party, aside from any-
thing personal ?
Mr. Selly. I will tell you what my approach is to collective bargain-
ing. It is that, first of all, the strike weapon is an extremely serious
thing and I don't know of too many situations where anyone has
gained by a strike, win or lose, either side.
My experience over the years has taught me to do everything reason-
able and feasible to avoid a strike, and to reach a settlement with the
corporation. I have done that, with a fair amount of success.
368 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
But my experience also tells me that if you in any way limit the
rioht of my membership to exercise their right to withhold their
labor, you approach the situation of involuntary servitude. You de-
feat the purposes of giving them an equality of strength and collective
bargaining.
Mr. Arens. There is nothing in these bills that does that, of course.
Mr. Selly. I think there is something in these bills that does that
because, as we said earlier in this testimony
Mr. Arens. It weakens the right to strike?
Mr. Sellt. No. I say weakens the power of the union to ejffectively
conduct itself in a struggle for a contract, let's say.
Let us leave aside the question of strikes for the moment altogether.
Under the terms of these bills, as we have indicated earlier, visualize
a situation where the company and the union have exhausted the
normal procedures of collective bargaining. They have met for weeks
or even for months. They have invoked the processes of mediation
and conciliation and they are far apart. The company says, "We
cannot do what you ask," and the union says, "We cannot accept
what you propose."
At that point the workers have a hard choice to make and the com-
pany has a hard choice to make : The company — whether they should
permit the workers to go on strike for want of a better offer; the
workers — as to whether or not it pays to go on strike, whether they
can win the strike, and a lot of other factors.
At that point, on the basis of equality, at least, to that extent
nobody is interfering in that struggle for determination. But if at
that point the Government can come in on the basis of a complaint
by the company or an expelled union member, or some other "JBnk,"
sir, can come in and charge the union under the terms of this bill with
some vague, indefinable, prohibitive act, the workers can then and
there be deprived of their collective-bargaining leadership. If they
have a strike, the strike can
Mr. Arens. In other words, you are saying the Government at this
point can do something that is morally wrong ?
Mr. Sellt. I think so; yes.
Mr. Arens. And you are assuming in this set of facts that the
Government is going to use legislation for immoral purposes?
Mr. Sellt. I am not assuming that. I am asserting that the Gov-
ernment should not be given the power to do that because I don't want
to put into the hands of the Government the right to weaken my union
when it is in collective bargaining. I don't want the Government to
be given the power to be on the side of the employer. The contest is
too difficult as it is. The corporations are too powerful.
Mr. Arens. I would agree with you. We don't want the Govern-
ment, in any sense, trying to weaken a labor organization as a bona
fide labor organization, or one that doesn't have Communists, sabo-
teurs, or spies, or people who are working against the interests of tliis
country in it.
Mr. Sellt. All people you consider to have those attributes.
Mr. Arens. Somebody would make the decision; that wouldn't
be me.
Mr. Sellt. That is just the point. It wouldn't be you who would
make the decision and it might not be any other single person, although
the Attorney General can do incalculable damage without even making
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 369
a decision or making a determination. All he has to do is to act on
an unsupported charge and, for practical purposes, he decapitates a
union.
As I said before, it is an Alice in Wonderland situation. You cut
■off their head and then say, "Now you can have a trial."
It isn't a question of anyone abusing a power. People should not
be given power which is susceptible of abuse.
Mr. Arens. Should a group be autliorized under the law, then, to
bargain if that group might be controlled by a conspiracy ? That is
right on your point.
Mr. Selly. As I said before
Mr. Arens. We are not talking about Communists now. We are
talking about a conspiracy.
Mr. Selly. As I said before, the question of violations of law are
questions on which I don't need to express an opinion because there is
law that i^unishes certain crimes.
Mr. Arens. Let us do this, then. Let us see what you would think
of a law, a simple little law outlawing the Communist Party?
Mr. Selly. What do I think of it?
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Mr. Selly. I think it would be a very bad law. I am against out-
lawing any political party.
Mr. Arens. And you think, of course, the Communist Party is a
political party ?
Mr. Selly. I answered your question.
Mr. Arens. Answer the question. What would you think of a law
that would outlaw a person who is a member of a Communist
conspiracy ?
Mr. Selly. Again you ask questions with an assumption. I am not
going to answer questions like that.
Mr. Arens. Let us get on with your statement.
Mr. Selly. I say, in connection with Mr. Wilcox's statement, it was
a candid and honest expression of the difficulty he found in distin-
guishing between what might be termed a good union practice from
a union standpoint and some of these acts which we might feel are
subversive from a communistic angle.
That is the dilemma which anybody would be in, as Mr. Wilcox was,
in trying to make that determination. I say we would be committing
a serious blunder and committing a serious breach in American demo-
■cratic practices if we supported a law which was open to that kind of
abuse.
Mr. Arens. You are going to suggest, I assume, language to us that
will avoid any ambiguity so that we can outlaw the Communist Party
or drive Communists out of labor organizations without the possi-
bility or probability of abuse? Is that correct?
Mr. Selly. That is not correct.
Mr. Arens. I take it, then, you are not going to submit any lan-
guage, you are not going to help the committee in any language?
Mr. Selly. I am not going to help the committee commit a crime
against the Constitution of the United States as I conceive it to be the
law of this land.
Mr. Arens. And it would be a crime against the United States if
we would drive Communists out of labor organizations ?
370 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Selly. If you enacted any kind of thought control or limita-
tion on the right of workers to elect their representatives I think it
would be a crime against the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Arens. And you think if we would outlaw the Communist
Party or drive Communists out of labor organizations that would be
thought control ? Is that correct ?
Mr. Selly. Yes ; tliat is correct.
I want to deal with the record of ACA, which, as I say, has been
smeared. I want to spend a few minutes on the question of what the
record shows in regard to the history of ACA and in regard to the
basic question of two things, wliether we have acted in the interest of
the members of our union, and wliether or not we have acted in the
national interest.
We have been in business for quite a long time, and there is a record.
The very communications companies whose record is one of dollar
patriotism have the cynical effrontery to attack our union and impugn
the loyalty of its officers and members.
Our patriotism has been affirmed by far more responsible judges.
Our membership is justifiably proud of their union's record in war
and peace. We are proud of such contributions as these :
No-strike pledge — 100 percent observance of the no-strike pledge.
Not a minute's stoppage despite the many provocations of communi-
cations companies and shipowners.
Mr. Arens. That is when w& were allies with the Soviets? Is that
what it was?
Mr. Selly. With the Soviets, with England
Mr. Arens. Was that in accord with tlie directives of the Kremlin
to the party?
Mr. Selly. It was in accord with the wishes of our membership and
witli the policies of the CIO, which was our parent organization, of
our union.
Mr, Arens. How did that correspond with the policies of the Soviet
Union ?
Mr. Selly. As I say, the chamber of commerce claims that CIO's
policies and the Soviet policies are identical.
Mr. Arens. No. I am asking just one question. You are proud
of the 100 percent observance of the no-strike pledge. That was given
in the last war, wasn't it ?
Mr. Selly. That is right.
Mr. Arens. How did that policy correspond with the policy of the
Conununist Party in the United States at that time ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know. It corresponded with the policy of the
CIO and with most of the A. F. of L., almost the entire labor
movement.
We don't claim any special credit for it, except in one respect which
I will refer to later.
Clearing the wires: Elimination of fixed-text messages and setting
of speed-of-service standards by the Board of War Communications
through BWC Order 25-C. This was the result of ACA's production
committee's efforts and the ACA campaign to get the message through.
Mr. Arens. That was during the war, too ?
Mr. Selly. That is right.
Mr. Arens. When the Soviets were our buddies ?
Mr. Selly, That is right.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 371
Mr. Arens. How about the period of time-
Mr. Selly. That is when we had that policy.
Mr. Arens. How about during the time before Hitler attacked the
Soviet Union ? Did you have a pledge of no strike ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know the date on which the no-strike pledge was
taken. As a matter of fact, it was just before the CIO adopted it as a
policy. We were the first union in the CIO to adopt that policy, as far
as I know.
ACA safety and antiespionage plan : Late in 1041 and in early
1942, the ACA submitted a nine-point plan to the Government to aid
it in antiespionage work and to guarantee safety of communications
and ships in the war.
I should explain that the reference to the maritime industry was
occasioned by the fact that at that time, unlike now, we had members
who were radio operators aboard ships, and it was in connection with
their work that the ACA introduced safety and antiespionage.
Mr. Arens. This nine-point program was to protect against Nazi
espionage, wasn't it ?
Mr. Selly. To protect against any espionage work for any enemy.
Mr. Arens. Was there anything in there about protecting against
espionage by espionage agents of the Soviet Union ?
Mr. Selly. No, nor by England or France or anyone else. Any-
thing defined as espionage was incorporated. Anything that the
captain of a ship or the Coast Guard would have considered espionage
would have been helped and was helped.
It was designed to meet many problems arising in shipboard war-
time communications, attacks on ship convoys, war against the enemy
at sea, and to generally facilitate the merchant marine's contribution
to the war effort.
The plan was adopted by Government agencies through the United
States Coast Guard. Capt. E. N. Webster, representing the Com-
mandant of the Coast Guard, said of the ACA, with respect to this
plan
Mr. Arens. Wliat plan have you adopted against espionage now by
the Soviet Union, to preclude espionage now ?
Mr. Selly. We haven't formed any.
Mr. Arens. I am shocked to hear that.
Mr. Selly. All right, you are shocked.
Mr. Arens. You had one in 1941 and 1942 against the Nazis.
Mr. Selly. We were at war.
Mr. Arens. Don't we have a cold war?
Mr. Selly. I guess we have a cold war. That is what it says in the
papers.
Mr. Arens. Don't you have some plans or proposals for protection
against possible espionage by the Soviets and members of the Soviet
conspiracy ?
Mr. Selly. We have no specific plans.
Mr. Arens. You haven't got around to it ?
Mr. Selly. Any espionage by any worker in this industry is amply
protected by virtue of the statutes that are currently on the books, spe-
cifically the statutes relating to making it a crime
Mr. Arens. You had your own little program in addition to the
laws back in 1941 and 1942 when we were buddies of the Soviets. I
372 SUBVERSIVE IXFLUEXCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
am wondering why you haven't got some now that protect us against
the Soviets.
Mr. Selly. Yon keep wondering.
Mr. Arens. Quite frankly, I don't wonder too long about it.
Mr. Sellt. All right.
Voluntary shipping pledge : The voluntary wartime shipping pledge
of ACA's marine radio operators in the United States merchant marine
helped to keep the ships sailing to get the supplies of war to the world's
battlefields.
The casualty list among these ACA members who went down with
their ships was greater proportionately than any branch of the Armed
Forces, Mam- of these won citations for "heroism beyond the line of
duty." Ships have been named in honor of some ACA members.
Blood to Red Cross : ACA's campaign inspired its members to donate
thousands of pints of their blood to the Eed Cross.
Bonds : ACA's war-ljond campaign raised huge smns of money to
buy the vital equipment and arms for victory.
Tribute to our patriotism. Here is testimony to the contributions
made by our union :
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower :
All ranks of the Allied Forces are deeply grateful for your pledge of continued
cooperation. We fully appreciate the vital part played by all groups affording
communications.
Maj. Gen. H. C. Ingles, at that time Chief of Signal Corps, United
States Army :
This will acknowledge receipt of telegram * * * in which you express the
desire of your organization to exert all extra effort to "get the message through."
This is indeed the true American spirit and it is with this type of cooperation
from the men and women on the production front that the final day of victory will
be hastened.
Mr. Arens. All of these pertain to the Second "World War ? Is that
correct?
Mr. Selly. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. Would you read us some tributes that you have gotten
recently, since the Internal Security Subcommittee exposed the ACA,
since then ?
Mr. Selly. If I got any tribute from you or the committee I would
be suspicious myself.
Mr. Arens. Read some of the tributes that the American Com-
munication Association has gotten since May and June of 1951.
]VIr. Selly. You probably don't like to hear what you don't like to
hear, but it is a part of the record and a part of the record that I
want to present to this committee.
If you are not interested in hearing it, say so and I will stop.
Mr. Arexs. Go right ahead. It is very enlightening.
Mr. Selly. Mr. Alex G. Nordholm, chief of the national section of
war production drive :
From what I've seen of your work, I have been tremendously impressed with
the constructive thinking you have been doing on the problem of communications
in wartime. You have done things yourselves to improve conditions through
your work in victory committees. You have shown that you are sincerely con-
cerned with winning the war. You are going beyond what is normally expected.
I have nothing but praise for the work the American Communications Asso-
ciation has done so far.
SUBVERSIVE IXFLUEXCE IN CERTAIX LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 373
Mr. Arexs. Haven't you gotten some here since 1951 ?
Mr. Selly. You keep playing your game and I will keep playing
mine.
Adm. Emory S. Land :
The members of your association are giving valiant service to our common
effort — the defeat of our enemy nations.
Col. S. P. Fink, United States Army Signal Corps :
Back at home the national communications members of the war team — that's
you and me — Signal Corps and ACA — have done its job fast and well. The
American Communications Association has recognized the need for handling
Government messages quickly. The ACA has never let us down. AVe are confident
it never will.
James L. Fl3\ FCC Cliairman :
I know that ACA will continue to consider ways in which it can best assist
the winning of the war. The members of your union are of special importance
in that task, and I know that they will continue to get the message through
safely, efficiently, and without delay.
Boston Evening American :
The American Communications Association, a CIO affiliate made up of Western
Union employees, has set a patriotic pattern for all union employees in the United
States during the war.
Nevrark Star Ledger :
No finer example of labor's responsibility and of faith in the democratic process
has been given than that furnished by the American Communications Association,
CIO.
New York Journal-American :
When a union — and as vital a one as a telegraph workers' union — pledged itself
to place the needs of the Government above personal considerations then, indeed,
we are in the presence of patriotism in the best meaning of the word.
Milwaukee Journal :
The American Communications Association, a CIO union for employees for
the telegraph systems, has set an example and high mark for all unionism during
the war.
New York World-Telegram :
The American Communications Association, CIO, seems to have a different,
and, we think, a finer conception of its obligation.
I don't want to burden the record with the affirmative record of our
union in bringing benefits to our members because that, too, is a public
record and the members are aware of it. However, let me briefly
indicate to you what we think may be some of the reasons why the
membership of our union supports this union in its leadership.
In 1Q42 the average hourly wage of all employees, except mes-
sengers— and now I am talking about the landline telegraph indus-
try— -was 64 cents an hour before our union re]:)resented those workers.
Today the average has been more than tripled, and is somewhere in
the neighborhood of $1.90 an hour.
Mr. Ajrexs. Do you think they could do as well if they had non-
Communist leadership ?
]Mr. Selly. That is a loaded question.
In 1942 the average rate for messengers was 32 cents an hour. To-
day, by virtue of the completely successful counterattacks against
company attempts on three separate occasions, the average has been
pushed up to 85 cents an hour.
374 SUBVERSIVE IXFLUEXCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
In 1942 there was no system of classification or wage scales, and
pay rates were entirely at the whim of the company officials, and had
no connection with service or type of work performed. Today every
employee has a definite classification and a wage scale, knows where
he stands on wages, and is not subject to the whim of management.
We talk about retroactive pay won for the workers, and this was
for the period of 1942 to 1950. It has increased since then. It was in
the neighborhood of $10 million in retroactive pay won.
I just want to give you a few other examples of the benefits which
have been brought to the workers. Just to mention them in general,
protection of workers for their seniority rights, guarantee of pension
payments which were formerly completely at the discretion of the
company — incidentally, the pension plan under Western Union is
comparatively a good one, which may surprise you to hear from me, al-
though we hope to improve it in the coming negotiations.
I will say, further, we are not only responsible for all the benefits in
that pension plan. This is one company which did have a pension
plan even before the union was in. We have been responsible for ne-
gotiating some improvements in it and we hope to do more.
Most important of all, I think, from the point of view of the mem-
bers, is the fact that in the administration of the contract the exist-
ence of the union and the ability of the union to bargain on the basis
of equality with management has achieved two important things:
Labor stability on the job, which is profitable to both sides, and a
proper handling of gi'ievances not on a fair-haired-boy basis but on
the basis of the merits.
Similarly, in international communications, in RCA, just to give
you a few examples, automatic operators in 1912 got 68 cents an hour.
Today they get up to $1.75 an hour. That is the maximum.
Technical workers got $1 an hour in 1942. Today they get $2.37.
You can go down the list.
I am sorry. These were the wages, not in EGA but in Western
Union Telegram. In RCA they are higher.
In RCA operating technicians, their scale formerlv was $62 at the
top in 1937. Today it is $100.75. Radio operators, '$60 in 1937; to-
day, at $97.75 .
Printer operators, $40 in 1937 ; are today at $88.75.
Comparable increases are found for all classifications of work under
comparable contracts in addition to improvement in vacations, hours
of work, working conditions, and all the other subject matters of col-
lective bargaining.
If this committee is puzzled about why the members of ACA con-
tinue to vote for this union in elections before the NLRB, why they
continue to reelect the officers of this union year after year, as they
have over the past 10 years, I think you will find the explanation not
in anything else except the record of the union, and that record
shows, as I have stated here, that we have done a good job, and an ag-
gressive job, a responsible job in taking these workers from among the
3 lowest paid in all groups in American industry before the union to
the point where now, speaking of the telegraph workei's who were in
that depressed state, where now they are among the 4 or 5 highest paid
in liourly rates and in their earnings in American industry.
If they continue to support this union and its officers it is because
we have brought to them at least a measure of industrial security
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 375
without which democracy may become a hollow thing. If they con-
tinue to support this union and its officers it is because we fought
vigorously and effectively against the attempts to create monopoly in
the international communications field, because they feel that the crea-
tion of that monopoly would be harmful to them, to the public interest,
and to the national defense.
If they continue to support this union and its officers it is because,
on the basis of having lived with and worked with this union and its
officers for 15 years, they find a continuous and effective record of
representation of their interests, of the public interest, and the na-
tional interest.
In summary, I would say that our opposition to these three bills
Mr. Arens. Could this union exist and be militant or be effective and
accomplish increased wages, less hours, all the benefits they are talking
about here, without Communist leadership?
Mr. Selly. It could accomplish it with whatever leadership its
membership elected provided they followed the same principles, in my
opinion, that they have been following up to this time, the principle
of fighting for a just share of what they produce.
Mr. Arens. Then if we would only knock out the Communists it
would go right on, and we wouldn't be busting the union, would we ?
Mr. Selly. If you knock out the leadership which this membership
has elected you would be doing an antidemocratic thing and a union-
busting thing, in my opinion.
Mr. Arens. Are there not any people in the union, any people capa-
ble of running the union and doing all the things that have to be done
in a union who are not Communists? Do they fight just as hard, just
as vigorously, those who are not Communists?
Mr. Selly. I think there are hundreds of such people.
Mr. Arens. If we would merely drive out the Communists we
wouldn't be busting the miion, after all, would we?
Mr. Selly. I say if you pass legislation which gives the power to
substitute your judgment, the Government's judgment, for the judg-
ment of the workers you would be doing something antidemocratic and
union busting.
Mr. Arens. If we drive out only the Communists are we substituting
the judgment of the committee or the judgment of someone for the
judgment of the workers?
Mr. Selly. I don't know. You may be. I don't know.
Mr. Arens. Is there anything else, Mr. Selly ?
Mr. Selly. Just give me 1 minute. I had a few notes.
In an effort to close my testimony on a note that I think is appro-
priate, I want to quote from a man to whom the Republican Party
looks as one of its founders, Abe Lincoln, who had considerable to say
about the relationship between capital and labor.
Mr. Arens. I think he said :
If this country is going to be clestroyfd, it will be destroyed not from assault
from witliout, but from assault from within.
Didn't he say that ?
Mr. Selly. I don't know.
He said the following :
376 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
All that serves labor serves the Nation. All that harms labor is treason to
America. No lines can be drawn between these two. If any man tells you he
loves America yet hates labor, he is a liar. If any man tell you he trusts America
yet fears labor, he is a fool. There is love without labor, and to fleece the one
is to rob the other.
Mr. Arens. Have you any quotations there from the head of the
Communist conspiracy that they must concentrate their spies and
saboteurs and agents in labor organizations? Have you ever read
anything along that line ?
Mr. Selly. I have finished my testimony.
Mr. Arens. The subcommittee will be in recess, subject to the call
of the chairman.
(Whereupon, at 4: 30 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled mat-
ter was recessed, subject to the call of the chairman.)
SUBYERSIYE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1954
United States Senate,
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration
OF the Internal Security Act and Other Internal
Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington^ D. C.
The task force of the subcommittee met at 10 : 05 a. m., pursuant to
call, in room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler
(chairman of the task force) presiding.
Present: Senator Butler.
Present also : Richard Arens, special counsel ; Frank Schroeder and
Edward R. Duffy, professional staif members.
Senator Butler. The subcommittee will come to order.
Counsel, will you call the first witness ?
Mr. Arens. The first witness, if you please, sir, is Mr. Vern
Countryman.
Senator Butler. JNIr. Countryman, in the presence of Almighty
God, do you solemnly promise and swear that the evidence which you
give to the task force of the Internal Security Subcommittee will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Countryman. I do.
TESTIMONY OF VERN COUNTRYMAN, HAMDEN, CONN., REPRESENT-
ING EMERGENCY CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEE
Senator Butler. Will you please state your name, address, and
occupation for the purposes of the record ?
Mr. Countryman. Vern Countryman, law professor, Yale Law
School. My address is 153 WoodlaAvn Street, Hamden, Conn.
Mr. Arens. Could you give us a word about your background, Mr.
Countryman? What courses do you teach, and how long have you
been at Yale?
Mr. Countryman. Yes. I have been a member of the Yale faculty
since 1948. I teach courses in corporations, corporate reorganization,
and bankruptcy. Prior to Yale, I taught at the University of Wash-
ington Law School.
Mr. Arens. Where is that?
Mr. Countryman. In Seattle, Wash. Prior to that I was a law
clerk for Mr. Justice William O. Douglas. Prior to that I was, for a
short time, with the National Labor Relations Board in its regional
office in Seattle. I have omitted somewhere in that chronology the
377
378 SUBVERSIVE INFLUEXCE IX CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
fact that I was, for a short time, an assistant attorney general of the
State of Washington in 1946.
Senator Butler. Do you know Senator Warren Magnuson ?
Mr. Countryman. Yes; I know him.
Senator Butler. I serve on the Commerce Committee with Warren.
Do you have a prepared statement?
Mr. Countryman. I liave submitted a written statement for the
record.
Senator Butler. Woukl you want to file that?
Mr. Countryman. No. Pursuant to your instructions, I had
planned to take not to exceed 15 minutes with an oral statement.
Senator Butler. Then we will make this prepared statement a part
of the record at this point, but, for the benefit of the chairman, I
vrould like to have all of the points in your statement covered in your
oral testimony.
Mr. Countryman. They will be.
(The statement referred to follows:)
Statement of Vern Countryman, Representing Emergency Civil Liberties
Committee
This statement is submitted in connection with S. 23, introduced by Senator
MeCarran ; S. 16U6, introduced by Senator Butler ; and H. R. 3993, introduced by
Representative Rhodes. I understand that H. R. 3993 is the counterpart of
S. 1254. introduced tiy Senator Goldwater. but since I have had no opportunity
to examine the latter bill, I have directed my remarks to H. R. 3993.
S. 23
This bill, by amending section 5 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of
1950, would exclude from office or employment in any labor union, any person
who is a member of an organization ordered by the Subversive Activities Con-
trol Board to register as a Communist action or Communist front organization.
Section 8 of the Subversive Activities Control Act defines a Communist action
organization as one which (1) "is substantially directed, dominated, or con-
trolled by the foreign government or foreign organization controlling the world
Communist movement" and which (2) "operates primarily to advance the objec-
tives of such world Communist movement."
What is this world Communist movement whose substantial control and the
furtherance of whose objectives marks a Communist action organization?
Section 2 of the Subversive Activities Control Act describes the world Com-
munist movement as "a worldwide revolutionary movement whose purpose is,
by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (governmental and other-
wise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any other means deemed necessary,
to establish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in the countries throughout
the world through the medium of a worldwide Communist organization."
In attempting to apply this definition of a Communist action group to any
organization, the Board is directed by section 13 of the Subversive Activities
Control Act to "take into consideration :"
1. "The extent to which the organization's policies are formulated and its
activities performed" pursuant to directives of or to effectuate the policies of
the foreign government or foreign organization controlling the "world Com-
munist movement."
2. "The extent to which its views and policies do not deviate from those of
such foreign government or foreign organization."'
3. "The extent to which it receives financial or other aid, directly or in-
directly, from or at the direction of such foreign government or foreign or-
ganization."
4. "The extent to wliich it sends members or representatives to any foreign
country for instruction in or training in the principles, policies, strategy, or
tactics of such world Communist movement."
5. "The extent to which it reports to such foreign government or foreign or-
ganization or its representatives."
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 379
6. "The extent to which its principal leaders or a substantial number of its
members are subject to or recognize the disciplinary power of such foreign
government or foreign organization or its representatives."
7. "The extent to which, for the purpose of concealing foreign direction^
domination, or control, or of expediting or promoting its objectives, (i) it fails
to disclose, or resists efforts to obtain information as to, its membership * * *
(ii) its members refuse to acknowledge membership therein, (iii) it fails to dis-
close, or resists eft'orts to obtain information as to, records other than member-
ship lists, (iv) its meetings are secret, and (v) it otherwise operates on a
secret basis."
8. "The extent to which its principal leaders or a substantial number of its
members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate
to their obligations to such foreign government or foreign organization."
A Communist front organization as distinguished from a Communist action
organization, is defined in section 3 as an organization which (1) "is substan-
tially directed, dominated, or controlled by a Communist action organization,"
and which (2) "is primarily operated for the purpose of giving aid and support
to a Communist action organization, a Communist foreign government, or the
world Communist movement."
In attempting to apply this definition to an organization, the Board is directed
b.y section 13 to "take into consideration :"
1. "The extent to which persons who are active in * * * management, direc-
tion, or supervision" of the organization, "whether or not holding office therein,
are active in the management, direction, or supervision of, or as representatives
of, a Communist action organization, a Communist foreign government, or the
world Communist movement."
2. "The extent to which its suppoit, financial or otherwise, is derived from
any Communist action organization, Communist foreign government, or the world
Communist movement."
3. "The extent to which its funds, resources, or personnel are used to further
or promote the objectives of any Communist action organization. Communist
foreign government, or the world Communist movement."
4. "The extent to which the positions taken or advanced by it from time to
time on matters of policy do not deviate from those of any Communist action
organization. Communist foreign government, or the world Communist move-
ment."
In its original form, as a registration statute backed by crim.inal sanctions and
by denial to members of proscribed organizations of rights to passports, public
employment, and private employment in defense facilities, the Subversive Activi-
ties Control Act launched a program of Government inquiry into and censor-
ship of organizations and organization membership, under standards of infinite
vagueness, which is unprecedented in the history of a country whose Constitution
guaiantees freedom of association. To add the additional sanction of denial of
labor union office or employment to members of proscribed organizations would
further encroach upon freedom of association and upon other constitutional
guaranties.
Under the Subversive Activities Control Act, the Board may find that an or-
ganization is a Communist action organization because its policies to some extent,
and regardless of their purpose or merit, "do not deviate from" those of the
"world Communist movement" ; or because "a substantial number of its" members
are subject to a foreign allegiance ; or even because the organization will not
disclose its member.ship lists or other records. If the Board makes such a de-
termination, all members of the organization are barred from labor union office
or employment by S. 23.
Having found one organization to be a Communist-action organization, the
Board may find a second organization to be a Communist front because "persons
who are active in * * * management" of the second organization, whether
officers or not, are either "active in the management" of the first or "active * * *
as representatives of" the first ; or because the second organization received
"support, financial or otherwise" from the first : or because the second organiza-
tion's "funds, resources, or personnel are used" to some extent to "further or
promote the objectives" of the first : or because positions taken by the second
organization, regardless of their merit or jnirpose. "to some extent" and "from
time to time" "do not deviate from" positions taken by the first organization.
If the Board makes such a determination, all members of the second organization
are barred from labor union office or employment by S. 23.
380 SUBVERSrV'E INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Under such a law, every labor union official or employee holds his organization
affiliations — including membership in his own union — at his peril at any time a
determination by the Subversive Activities Control Board of the sort above-
described may render him ineligible for office or employment. T'nder such a law,
the first amendment's guaranty of free association becomes meaningless to the
labor-union officer or employee.
Moreover, the labor-union officer, or employee, may incur the sanctions of the
law not because of any fault on his part or, indeed, because of the fault of a
majority of the members or the officers of the organization to which he belongs.
His organization may be proscribed, and the provision of S. 23 brought into play,
because some policies of the organization, however meritorious and regardless of
their motivation or purpose, "do not deviate from," but coincide with, the policies
of another organization — or because "a substantial number" of the organization's
members are found to have a foreign allegiance. Such a law is a dangerous
departure from the Anglo Saxon tradition that sanctions are imposed only on
the basis of personal guilt.
Finally, in its imposition of criminal penalities, S. 23 would deprive the union
officer or employee of much of the constitutional protection customarily afforded
an accused in a criminal case.
In the first place, it seems impossible to reconcile the definitions of "Communist
action" and "Communist front" organizations, and the definitions of the "world
Communist movement" with what the Supreme Court has characterized as "the
first essential of due process of law" : "That the terms of a penal statute creating
a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject under
it what conduct on their part will render them liable to those penalties" — an
essential which the Court held was lacking in "a statute which either forbids or
requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" (Connally
V. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385).
Moreover, this bill would deprive the accused of many of the procedural safe-
guards which are imposed upon criniinal proceedings. Under the bill, it would
become a crime, punishable by a $10,000 fine or 5 years' imprisonment, or both,
for a union officer or employee to hold his oftice or employment if:
1. He was a member of an organization
2. which had been oi'dered by the Board to register as a "Communist ac-
tion" or a "Communist front" organiz-ition.
3. and he had notice of the Board's order.
But by section 13k of the Subversive Activities Control Act, publication of the
Board's order in the Federal Register is made to constitute notice to the union
officer or employee. The only issues left open to the accused in a criminal
trial would be, then, whether he was a memlier of the organization and whether
the organization had been ordered by the Board to register. The propriety of the
Board's order — like the question of the defendant's actual notice of that order —
would not be open to inquiry before the grand jury which is asl\ed to indict him
or before the jury which is supposed to convict him only if it finds him guilty
beyond all reasonable doubt. Those two ingredients of his offense are removed
from the grand jury and the trial jury.
One of these ingredients — the question of his knowledge — is disposed of entirely
by a publication in the Federal Register. The other — the question of tlie pro-
priety of the Board's order — can be challenged only by appeal from that order
under section 14 of the Subversive Activities Control Act. And on such an
appeal, the Board is to affirm if its findings are "supported by the preponde-
ance of the evidence."
With respect to the most important ingredients of the olTense defined by S. 23 —
the question of the individual's culpability and the question of his organization's
culpability — the union oflicer or employee is deprived of the right to indictment
by grand jury guaranteed by the fifth amendment, the right to trial by jury with
a confrontation of adverse witness guaranteed by the sixth amendment, and of
the traditional presumption of innocence which prevails until overcome beyond
all reasonable doubt.
S. 1G06
This bill, like S. 23, would employ some of the existing definitions and pro-
cedures of the Subversive Activities Control Act, but in somewhat different
fashion.
It would amend that act to empower the Subversive Activities Control Board to
determine whether any labor union "is substantially directed, dominated, or
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 381
controlled by any individual or individuals (whether officers of such labor
organization or not),"
1. Who are or ever have been members of the Communist Party, any
"Communist action" organization, or any "Communist front" organization.
2. Or who "have consistently aided, supported, or in any manner contrib-
uted to or furthered the activities of such organizations, or of any other
'totalitarian dictatorship.' "
"Totalitarian dictatorship" is defined in section 3 of the Subversive Activities
Control Act to "mean and refer to systems of government not representative in
fact, characterized by (A) the existence of a single political party, organized on a
dictatorial basis, with so close an identity between such party and its policies
and the governmental policies of the country in which it exists, that the party
and the government constitute an indistinguishable unit, and (B) tlie forcible
suppression of opposition to such party."
If the Board's determination is adverse to the union, the union loses its right
to function as a bargaining agent or to Invoke the benefits of the Labor-Manage-
ment Relations Act of 1947 — and, while the Board is making its determination,
the union's rights in these respects are suspended. The Board's determination is
reviewable in tlie court of appeals. If that court sets aside the Board's adverse
determination, its decision is reviewable by the Supreme Court, but the suspension,
of the union's rights remains in effect until the Supx-eme Court disposes of the
case. If the court of appeals aflirms the Board's adverse determination, its
decisions is not reviewable by the Supreme Court,
This bill is subject to many of the objections stated against S. 23 and to
certain additional objections :
1. The organizational affiliations of all those who "substantially direct, domi-
nate, or control" a labor union — whether officers or not — are held at the peril
of the union's losing its entire function as bargaining representative and its
members losing the union's protection, despite the first amendment's guaranty
of freedom of association, and despite a complete lack of fault on the part of the
vast majority of the membership.
2. This loss may be imposed on the union and its membership under the same
standards of proof and the same vague definitions of offenses as are incorporated
into S. 23 — with the additional incorporation of the even more vague definition
of "totalitarian dictatorship."
3. Unlike S. 23, the sanctions of this bill would he imposed regardless of the
present fault of anyone — it is enough that those who control the union "ever have
been" members of the proscribed organizations.
4. While S. 23 would bring the procedures of the Subversive Activities Con-
trol Board into play OHly on charges filed by the Attorney General, this bill ap-
parently contemplates the filing of charges by anyone.
5. Unlike S. 23, this bill imposes its sanctions before the Board makes its de-
termination, and provides the union with a more restricted opportunity for
judicial review than that afforded the adverse party,
H. R. 3993
This bill also would employ some of the existing definitions and procedures of
the Subversive Activities Control Act. It would authorize the Subversive Ac-
tivities Control Board to determine whether labor unions or any persons who are
"influential in or responsible for the policies of" a labor union are "Communist
labor representatives."
An individual is a "Communist labor representative" if he is found by the
Board to have :
1. Knowingly advocated, aided, or supported, financially or otherwise, the
doctrines, policies, or aims of the world Communist movement.
2. Knowingly aided or supported, financially or otherwise, any Communist
action or Communist-front organization, or a Communist foreign government,
or any organization listed by the Attorney General under Executive Order
9835 subsequent to the time it was so listed.
3. Instigated or encouraged "or may instigate or encourage" strikes, slow-
downs, or work stoppages for the purpose of aiding and supporting the
world Communist movement.
In making this determination as to an individual, the Board "may consider
among other matters" :
43903—54 25
382 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
1. The extent to which he has been responsible for formulating, effectuat-
ing, or publicizing the activities or policies of any union or parent organiza-
tion with which his union is affiliated and which the Board finds to be a
"Communist labor representative."
2. The extent to which he has knowingly given financial assistance to,
received financial assistance from, been a member of, or a participant in the
activities of a Communist action organization, a Communist-front organiza-
tion, or the "world Communist movement."
3. Whether he has been a member of or a participant in the activities of
the Communist Party of the United States since January 1, 1949, or a
participant in the activities of any organization listed by the Attorney General
subsequent to the time of the listing.
A labor union is a "Communist labor representative" if the Board finds that :
1. It or any parent union "operates or functions in whole or in part as an
instrumentality for promoting or publicizing and advocating" the doctrine of
the world Communist movement.
2. It or its parent union "operates or functions in whole or in part as an
instrumentality for giving aid and support to" any Communist foreign
government, "Communist action" organization. Communist-front organiza-
tion, or the "world Communist movement."
3. Any individual "Communist labor representative" is "an officer or
employee of, or is influential in or responsible for the policies of" the union
or its parent union.
In maliing this determination with respect to a union, the Board "may consider
among other matters" :
1. Whether any persons active in the management of tlie union or its
parent have l)een active in or functioned as representatives of any Communist
action organization, Communist-front organization, Communist foreign gov-
ernment, or the world Communist movement, or have been, since January 1,
1949, members of or participants in the activities of the Communist Party of
the United States.
2. Whether any parent organization has knowingly accepted financial or
other support from a Communist action organization, a Communist-front
organization, a Communist foreign government, or the "world Communist
movement."
3. Whether its funds, resources, personnel, or those of its parent, have
been used to advocate, disseminate, publicize, or otherwise promote the
policies of any Communist action organization, Communist front organiza-
tion. Communist foreign government, or the world Communist movement.
4. Whether the iwsitions advocated or supported by it or its parent organi-
zation has "during any substantial period of time, been identical or sub-
stantially identical to positions advocated on like matters" by a Communist
action organization, a Communist front organization, a Communist foreign
government, or the "world Communist movement."
5. Wliether its officers, em])loyees, or others active in its management,
or those of its parent, have "participated in the activities and supported
the * ♦ * policies of "any international labor organization which regu-
larly adheres to the policies advocated and supported by the world Com-
munist movement."
0. Whether it or its parent has, since January 1, 1949, sponsored, in
whole or in part, the trip of any person to a country controlled by a Com-
munist foreign government.
The Board may require either a union or an individual found to be a "Com-
munist labor representative" to :
1. Cease acting as representative, spokesman, leader, adviser or agent
for employees engaged in any concerted activity for purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Cease collecting initiation fees or dues from such employees.
3. Cease instigating, encouraging, or supporting, directly or indirectly,
any strike, slowdown or work stoppage.
Violation of any provision of such a Board order is a criminal offense, subject-
ing the union to a fine of .$10,000 and subjecting an individual to a fine .$10,000
and 5 years' imprisonment, or both. Each day's violation is a separate offense.
In addition, the Board may require any union to :
1. "Permanently remove from influence in, or from office or employment"
any individual found to be a "Communist labor representative."
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 383
2. Sever all connections with any affiliated union found to be a "Com-
munist labor represenutatilve."
3. Take any other action which, in the Board's opinictn, will effectuate
the purpose of this bill :
Whenever the Board has issued an order against an individual or a union:
1. No action taken by employees "in connection with, or pursuant to the
leadership of" the union or individual is protected activity under section 7
of the Labor Management Relations Act.
2. The Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibition against injunctions in labor
disputes does not apply to any controversy in which such union or individual
is "directly or indirectly involved."
3. No suit for breach of collective bargaining contract can be brought under
section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act by such union or indi-
vidual ; and no suit can be brought against an employer on a contract nego-
tiated by such union or individual as representative of the employees —
except by employees who have withdrawn from the union or "disassociated
themselves from" the individual.
Under this bill, charges would be filed with the Board by the Attorney General.
The Board is then required to give the individual or union charged "not less
than .5 days" notice of a hearing. If, however, the union or individual represents
employees in a defense plant, the Board may not give "more than 10 days"
notice, and "immediately upon termination of the hearing the Board shall issue
its dtcisiou and order."
A union found to be a "Communist labor representative" may apparently purge
itself and get later clearance from the Board, but an individual found to be a
"Communist labor representative" is disqualified for life.
Every objectionable feature of S. 23 and S. 1G06 is compounded in this bill :
1. It reaches not only membership in proscribed Communist action and Com-
munist front organizations, but also aid of, support to, publicizing the program
of, or participation in the activities of such organizations,
2. It broadens the list of proscribed organizations to include not only Com-
munist action and Communist fi-ont organizations, but also organizations listed
by the Attorney General under the Federal employee loyalty program.
3. It visits its sanctions not only on union officers and employees and those
who control the union, but also on the union itself, and those influential in the
union.
4. In addition to the Subversive Activities Control Act's vague definitions of
Communist action and Communist front organizations and the world Commun-
ist movement, this bill would add the equally vague definition of a "Communist
labor representative."
5. To an even greater extent than does S. 1606, this bill would deprive union
members of the protection of their union regardless of any conceivable fault of
the vast majority of the members, and solely because of factors over which they
have no control.
6. Witli respect to the individual labor representative, this bill, like S. 1606,
would impose its sanctions regardless of present fault of anyone — past fault
will support tlie Board's finding that an individual representative is a "Com-
munist labor representative" and that finding will bar him from labor repre-
sentation for life.
7. In its criminal sanctions, as to essential ingredients of the offense, this bill,
like S. 23, substitutes the finding of the Subversive Activities Control Board,
entered on "substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole," in place
of the right to grand jury indictment, jury trial with confrontation of adverse
witnesses, and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond all
reasonable doubt. In addition, this bill authorizes the Board to base some of
its findings on a list made by the Attorney General in an ex parte proceeding
in which neither the organizations listed nor their members were allowed to
participate — a list which the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has
described as "a purely hearsay declaration " which is "of no probative value.'
United States v. Remington (191 F (2d) 245).
To an increasing degree, since 1940, we have become preoccupied in this
country with the enactment of prophylactic laws to protect ourselves against
subversion — laws which will enable us to detect and restrict potential snbver-
ters before they have had an opportunity to do their subversive deeds. Each of
these three bills is a further manifestation of that trend.
Our experience with that trend is not such as to encourage its continuation.
That experience has demonstrated two things :
384 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
1. The more laws we enact to protect us from potential subversion the more
alarmed we become about the possibilities of subversion. And the more alarmed
we become, the more necessity we see for the enactment of more drastic measures
than any yet enacted. And so we go on, piling repressive measure on top of
repressive measure, without any inquiry as to whether any such measure yet
adopted has really given us any protection against subversion, or whether any
such prophylactic law can give us any real protection.
2. The further we depart from our traditional practice of punishing acts,
the more we experiment with measures designed to detect and restrict potential
actors, the more our constitutional liberties give way. Since a search for a
potential subverter involves a probing into the words and thoughts and asso-
ciations of the suspect, we ride roughshod over the tirst amendment. Since we
are not really equipped to read the minds of men, since we cannot adduce suf-
ficient evidence which bears directly on what man thinks, we rely moi'e and
more upon a man's membership in, support of, or association with organizations
whose purposes we think we can identfy — until we have reached the point, which
all three of these bills reach, where we are ready to conclude that if a man!
agrees with a number of the organization's purposes — whether they be good,
bad or indifferent — he must also agree with the one bad purpose with which
we are concerned. Because our traditional, constitutional procedural guar-
anties designed to insure a fair trial were conceived and developed at a time
when we punished acts, they are inclined to get in the way wJien we set out to
punish thoughts, words and associations instead. So these guaranties must
also be overridden if we are to get on with this business.
This has been our experience so far, and the record of our experience does
not show that we have received any real protection in our attempt to fashion
and administer prophylactic measures. It shows, instead, that we have in
this process lost a good measure of the protection of the Bill of Rights. The
proposals before you now would encroach further upon the protection of the
Bill of Rights. For this reason, and for the additional specific reasons which
1 have mentioned in connection with each of these three bills, I urge you not
to recommend the passage of any of them.
Senator Butler. Proceed.
Mr. Countryman. I appear liere, I would like to say, as a repre-
sentative of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.
Mr. Akens. Could you tell us a word about that committee ?
Mr. Countryman. That is a voluntary committee of private citizens
formed about 2 years ago. It concerns itself with what it conceives
to be threats to the Bill of Eights.
It operates through an appearance of this sort on pending legis-
lation, through attempts to provide legal assistance in cases where it
thinks that an indiviclual's civil or political liberties are in jeopardy.
Mr. Akens. Could you tell us who are the principal officers?
Mr. Countryman. I have that information in my briefcase if you
want me to get it.
Mr. Arens. I think it would be advisable.
Senator Butler. I think so, for the purposes of the record.
Mr. Countryman. The chairman of the Emergency Civil Liberties
Committee is Mr. John Pickering. The executive director is Mr.
Clark Foreman. The organization is governed by a 51-member
council, of which I am one member.
Senator Butler. It is a nonprofit organization ?
Mr. Countryman. It is a nonprofit organization.
My statement is addressed to Senate bill 23, Senate bill 1606, and
House bill 3093. I understand that House bill 3903 is the counterpart
of Senate bill 1254, but, since I have had no opportunity to examine
Senate bill 1254, I have directed my remarks to the House bill.
Senate bill 23 would exclude from office or employment in any
labor imion any person who is a member of an organization ordered
by the Subversive Activities Control Board to register as a Com-
Subversive influence in certain labor organizations 385
munist-action or a Communist-front organization, and Communist-
action and Communist-front organizations are defined in the Sub-
versive Activities Control Act of 1950.
Under the special definitions of that Subversive Activities Control
Act and under that act's provisions as to what evidence the Board may
consider in reaching its determinations, the Subversive Activities Con-
trol Board may find that an organization is a Communist-action or-
ganization because its policies, to some extent and regardless of their
purpose or regardless of their merit, do not deviate from those of
the world Communist movement.
The world Communist movement is another concept defined in the
Subversive Activities Control Act.
Mr. Arens. Let us pause there for a moment. Professor. You said
there, if I get it correctly, that the Board could find an organization
was a Communist-action organization if it found that there was not
deviation from the line. Is that correct?
Mr. Countryman, That is correct.
Mr. Arens. Now, you are a law professor?
Mr. Countryman. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. And you are a lawyer, I take it?
Mr. CouNTRYiMAN. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. Have you studied the definition of a Communist-action
organization which appears on page 4 of the Internal Security Act?
Mr. Countryman. I have.
Mr. Arens. In that definition a Communist-action organization is
one which "is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by the
foreign o:overnment or foreign organization controlling the world
Communist movement." Is that correct?
Mr. Countryman. Tliat is correct.
Mr. Arens. So that before an organization could be found to be a
Communist-action organization in compliance with this definition in
the Internal Security Act, it would first have to be an organization
which is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by a foreign
government. Isn't that correct?
Mr. CouNTRYiviAN. That is correct, but in the application of that
definition, section 13 says the Board shall take into consideration the
extent to which an organization's views do not deviate from those of
such foreign government or foreign organization, the reference to such
foreign government or foreign organization being to one which is
supposed to control the world Communist movement.
Mr. Arens. Yes, but in taking into consideration certain elements,
the Board could not override the definition of Communist-action or-
ganization which appears on page 4 of the act, namely, that the or-
ganization "is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by the
foreign government." Isn't that correct?
Mr. Countryman. That is correct, but section 13 describes the sort
of evidence on which the Board may arrive at that conclusion, and I
think it is a fair inference that section 13, in specifying certain evi-
dence, sper-ified what it considered to be the most important evidence
going to the definition.
Mr. Arens. But in taking into consideration certain elements, the
Board must also meet the test prescribed in the definition of a Com-
munist-action organization ; must it not ?
386 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. CouNTRYMAisr. Correct. It must reach the coiichision that the
organization fits the definition, but it can draw the conclusion, it can
draw the inference from the sort of evidence described in section 13.
Mr. Arens. Then your statement here, appearing on page 3, is not
quite accurate when you say that —
Under the Subversive Activities Control Act the Board may find that an or-
ganization is a Communist-action organization because its ixilicies, to some
extent and regardless of their puiTpose or merit, do not deviate from those of the
world Communist movement ; or because a substantial number of its members
are subject to a foreign allegiance ; or even because the organization will not
disclose its membership lists or other records.
Mr. CouxTRTMAN. All of those items are specified in 13. I think
my statement is correct that the Board might, from that evidence de-
scribed in section 13, conclude that the organization falls within a
definition of the Communist-action organization.
Mr. Arexs. Well, you say here that if an organization refuses to
disclose its membership lists or the records.
Mr. CouNTRY3iAN. That is one sort of record.
Mr. Arexs. That the Board could find that the organization is
substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by a foreign govern-
ment.
Mr, CouxTRYMAN. I think it might; yes.
Senator Butler. Mr. Countryman, you do not mean that it could
on that one piece of evidence alone?
Mr. CouxTRTiMAN. I am not sure that it could as I read the Sub-
versive Activities Control Act. I think that is possible. We have not
enough experience with the administration of that act to know what
the courts are to say.
Mr. Arexs, Have you read the debates when the Internal Security
Act was passed?
Mr, CouNTRYiviAX. Yes ; I have.
Mr. Arexs. Do you not know that Senator McCarran, the principal
author of the Internal Security Act, made it abundantly clear on the
floor of the Senate that no organization could be found to be a
Communist-action organization unless it fell within all four corners
of the requirements for a Communist-action organization in this In-
ternal Security Act, including the element that the organization must
be substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by the foreign gov-
ernment or foreign organization controlling the world Communist
movement.
Mr, CouxTRYMAN. I quite understand that the Board has to find
that the organization falls within the four corners of the definition.
Mr. Arexs. And the definition has as its princi])al element that
the organization is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled
by the foreign government or foreign organization controlling the
world Communist movement.
Mr. CouxTRYMAx. That is correct.
Senator Butler. You feel that the couit would not be bound by the
legislativ^e history?
Mr. CouxTRYMAx. Yes, but I think that the court would certainly
look to the legislative history to try to find the meaning of the
Subversive Activities Control Act.
I do not quarrel with what Mr. Arens says the legislative history
discloses. All he is saying is that the legislative history discloses
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 387
what the act itself discloses that the Board must find, but the act
<joes on to describe the sort of evidence by which the Board may
find that the oro:anization falls within the definition.
Mr. Arens. No, the act says that in reaching its decision the Board
may take certain things into consideration, but it does not say that
the Board can fly in the face of the definition of what is the Com-
munist-action organization.
Mr. Countryman. No, it does not.
Mr. Arens. But you said so in your statement. You say that the
Board can find that the organization is a Communist-action organ-
ization just because it will not disclose its membership lists or records.
Mr. CouKTRYMAN. That is my opinion, my interpretation of the
act, and I will stand on it.
Senator Butler. We want your opinion.
Mr. Countryman. Here is my opinion, that under the act the Sub-
versive Activities Control Board may find that an organization is a
Communist-action organization because its policies do not deviate
from those of the world Communist movement or because a substantial
lunnber of its members, not even a majority of its members, are found
to be subject to foreign allegiance, or even because — and Mr. Arens
has anticipated me here by reading from my written statement —
even because the organization will not disclose its membership lists
and other internal records.
Senator Butler. And they are all in the disjunctive?
Mr. Countryman. Section 13 says the Board may consider 1 and 2
and 3.
Senator Butler. Right, in the conjunctive sense.
Mr. Countryman. Yes.
Senator Butler. You are treating them disjunctively and saying
any one of them ?
Mr. Countryman. I think that is the effect of it. When section 13
says this Board may consider 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, it doesn't mean the Board
has to find all five in every case. It means that if they are there the
Board may consider them to the extent that they are there. If it is
1, 2 and 3, the Board may consider that. If it is 1, the Board may
consider that, and, from that, may conclude that the organization is
a Communist-action organization.
Mr. Arens. It is your contention that if the XYZ organization,
which you, the Senator and I might start here for the purpose of
sweeping streets, refuses to disclose membership records or other rec-
ords, even our records of our little payroll, that the Board could say
that the XYZ organization is a Communist-action organization in
face of the definition written into this law that a Communist-action
organization is an organization which is substantially directed, domi-
nated, or controlled by the foreign government or foreign organiza-
tion controlling the Avorlcl Communist movement?
Mr. Countryman. I do not think a street-sweeping organization
is in any danger, but I think that a civil-liberties organization might
be.
Senator Butler. Under similar circumstances ?
Mr. Countryman. Yes.
Senator Butler. All right. I think the point is clear enough.
388 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Countryman. If the Board does make such a determination, all
members of the organization are barred from labor-union office or
employment by Senate bill 23.
Tlien, having found one organization to be a Communist-action
organization under the Subversive Activities Control Act, the Board
may find the second organization to be a Communist front under that,
act because persons who are active in the management of the second
organization are either active in the management of the first or active
as representatives of the first.
Mr. Arens. Would it not be fair here in the record to read now
what the law says is a Communist-front organization?
Mr. Countryman. I am quite willing to have that in the record.
Mr. Arens. We have read repeatedly in our colloquy what a Com-
munist-front organization is, as defined in tlie Internal Security Act,
and this is what it says :
The term "Coiumimist-front organization" means any organization in the
United States (other than a Communist-action organization) —
I will omit the reference to the paragraph there —
which (a) is substantiaUy directed, dominated or controlled by a Communist-
action organization, and (b) is primarily operated for the purpose of giving
aid and sui>port to a Communist-action oi-ganization, a Communist foreign gov-
ernment, or the world Communist movement * * *
Mr. Countryman. That is correct; and, again, section 13 described
the sort of evidence the Board may consider in reaching the conclusion
that an organization falls within that definition.
Senator Butler. Well, professor, this reminds me a little bit — and
there may be some similarity in these two things — of interlocking
directorates. I have heard a great deal of connnent about the evil of
interlocking directorates. Do you think that that should not apply
to a situation such as this, if you have the same directors ? You know
one is a Communist organization, and you have that same set of direc-
tors and officers running through other organizations. Wottld you not
have some reasonable ground to say tliat perhaps those other organiza-
tions are likewise Communist dominated ?
Mr. Countryman. They might or might not be.
Senator Butler. That is true in an ordinary business corporation,
is it not ?
Mr. Countryman. Except I would point out that this thing is not
confined to officers. It is anyone active in the operation of the organi-
zation. So, in the first place, it is a much broader sweep than just
the question of interlocking directorates.
In the second place, it would be no more than the fact of interlocking
active participants. From that fact alone, as I interpret this statute,
the Board could conclude that, because the one organization was al-
ready found to be a Communist-action organization, the second organi-
zation was a Commimist-front organization.
Mr. Arens. Now, as to this civil liberties organization that you
use as an illustration, not any specific one, that civil liberties organiza-
tion before it could be proscribed as a Communist front would have
to first meet the test that it is substantially directed, dominated, or
controlled by a Communist-action organization and is primarily oper-
ated for the purpose of giving aid and support to that Communist-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 389
action organization, a Communist foreign government or the world
Communist movement ? Is that correct ?
Mr. Countryman. That is correct. We still have our same quar-
rel on the interpretation of that act.
Senator Butler. In other words, you think that any one of those
tests would be enough ?
Mr. Countryman. Quite possible.
Senator Butler. Whereas Mr. Arens thinks you should take them
all.
Mr. Countryman. I do not think you have to have them all.
Mr. Arens. I think the law says that before an organization can
be proscribed as a Communist-action organization it has to be first
shown that the organization is substantially directed, dominated, or
controlled by the world Communist movement ; before it can be shown
that it is a Communist-front organization, as the law says here, it
has to be shown that it is —
substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by a Communist-action organ-
ization, and (ft) is primarily operated for the purpose of giving aid and support
to a Communist-action organization, a Communist foreign government, or the
world Communist movement —
but that the law says in arriving at determinations with respect to
whether or not an organization does fall within the categories set
forth on page 4, to which I have just alluded, the Board shall take
into consideration a number of things. If the facts do not substantiate
the conclusion that each of these two organizations falls within the
definition, then the finding of the Board, or the finding of anyone,
would fall.
Senator Butler. All right, Mr. Countryman, you may proceed.
Mr. Countryman. What I am trying to point out is that while that
definition which you keep reading states controls and purposes, sec-
tion 13 points out, as proper evidence upon which to base the determi-
nation, evidence which has nothing to do with either control or pur-
pose.
Senator Butler. Would you read the section 13 again ?
Mr. CouNiTtYMAN. Yes. Do you want the whole thing or just my
excerpts ?
Senator Butler. Just your excerpts.
Mr. Countryman. I said that if it found the first organization to
be a Communist-action organization the Board might find the second
organization to be a Communist-front, because — and now I am refer-
ring to section 13 — "persons who are active in * * * management" of
the second organization, whether officers or not, are either "active in
the management" of the first or "active * * * as representatives of"
the first.
That is one specification.
Or, because the second organization received "support, financial or
otherwise" from the first, or because the second organization's "funds,
resources, or personnel are used" to some extent to "further or pro-
mote tlie objectives" of the first, or because positions taken by the
second organization, regardless of their merit or purpose, "to some
extent" and "from time to time * * * do not deviate from" jDositions
taken by the first organization.
390 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
If the Board makes such a determination about the second organ-
ization, all members of the second organization are barred from labor
office or employment by Senate bill 23.
Senator Butler. And you feel that if No. 1 organization makes a
contribution to No. 2 organization, no matter how small, and even
though that is only an isolated incident, even though innocently made,
for the purposes of discussion. No. 2 organization, on that slight evi-
dence, could be held to be a Communist- front organization?
Mr. Countryman. If you have such contributions there is a pos-
sibility that it might be held to be a Communist-front organization.
Perhaps one little contribution, no. But a past history of several
little contributions, then I think the second organization is in danger.
Mr. Arens, Wouldn't the court, in looking at any finding of a board,
assuming a board would so fly in the face of the law, say ''Let us look
at the law. The law says you have to show control of this organiza-
tion by a foreign government or the world Communist movement.
That control is not shown by the evidence. Therefore, this is not a
Communist organization."
Mr. Countryman. If the court disagrees with the Board's interpre-
tation of the definition, then the court will reverse the Board's inter-
pretation, but how can any organization protect itself against the
accumulation of this sort of evidence which has nothing to do with
control or purpose, which is what the definition talks about ? This is
incriminating evidence to have against any organization.
Senator Butler. In other words, you feel that the statute makes it
incriminating evidence, and that it need not be cumulative?
Mr. Countryman. Yes, it certainly makes it incriminating. It says
the Board shall consider it when trying to determine whether to call
this organization a Communist-action or a Communist-front organiza-
tion.
Mr. xA.rens. But in saying it must consider it, it does not say that
it has to make a finding against it.
Mr. Countryman. It doesn't say it has to, but I say it permits it.
Mr. Arens. What kind of evidence would you use to show that the
given organization is in fact Communist controlled ?
Mr. Countryman. I offer no legal method for making that deter-
mination. I did not come here prepared to offer legislation. I doubt
very much if I could draft a Subversive Activities Control Act which
would please me.
Mr. Arens. Why is that?
Mr. Countryman. I think you are after an impossible objective.
Mr. Arens. To drive Communists out?
Mr. Countryman. As I try to make clear in this statement, that
sort of legislation, I think, is futile.
Senator Butler. You do not think that any sort of legislation
could be framed that would adequately protect the American citizens?
Mr. CouNTRYiviAN. Against what ?
Senator Bltler. Well, against charges such as you conjure up out
of this legislation.
Mr. CouNTRYiMAN. Well, the best way to have legislation which
does not create these threats is not to enact this sort of legislation.
Senator Butler. Well, the legislation is aimed at the threat of com-
munism.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 391
Mr. Countryman. Yes ; and I say it is a futile effort.
Senator Butler. The Congress and the people of America deem
that to be a very patent and potent threat. How would you go about
meeting it ?
Mr. Countryman. I would go about meeting it the way we met the
same sort of threat up to 1940, by keeping on the books the laws
which we have which forbid espionage, sabotage, and treason, leaving
it to the FBI and our other police agencies to enforce those laws.
Since this question has come up now, I would like to anticipate what
I intended to say a little later, and say that a law like the Subversive
Activities Control Act, a law like any of these three bills which I am
considering here in my statement, is not aimed at acts at all. It is
aimed at potential subversives, not at subversive deeds but at people
who may, at some time in the future, coimnit subversive deeds. It is
a prophylactic measure. That is the idea. We are going to catch
them before they commit treason, espionage, and sabotage.
Senator Butler. I do not want to break in on your line of thought,
but it also has the advantage that it does not permit an organization
dedicated to such acts to get firmly entrenched so that it can do them.
Do you not think that is some advantage ?
Mr. Countryman. If it will catch such an organization it will in
the same net catch some other organizations that I thinlc it does more
harm than good.
Mr. Arens. Well, now, wouldn't it do this good, this very elemental
good, if nothing else : that is, if it identifies for the American people
and brings out into the open for the light of public opinion to see an
organization which is Communist controlled, and Mr. and Mrs. Amer-
ica would then say "If this is a Communist organization, I am not
going to give my money to it."
Mr. Countryman. But I have no faith in the label which is pinned
on organizations under the procedures prescribed by the Subversive
Activities Control Act. I don't think that because the Board says
this organization fits within the definition of a Communist-front
organization that I am going to be satisfied that it is necessarily a
Communist-front organization. That definition is not binding on me
in my thinking.
I think a lot of people may accept what the Board says without
knowing what sort of evidence the Board considered, whereas, if
they did know what sort of evidence the Board considered, they might
not accept its conclusion.
Mr. Arens. Let us assume that we could get evidence that would
satisfy you that the XYZ organization is a Conmiunist organization.
Would it not be wholesome for the American people to know that the
XYZ organization, which is soliciting funds, is carrying on a program
as a Communist organization so that Mr. and Mrs. America would not
contribute to it ?
Mr. Countryman. That all depends on what you mean by Commu-
nist organization. What is this organization ?
Mr. Arens. It is an organization controlled by the Communist
Party.
Mr. Countryman. Of the United States?
Mr. Arens. Sir?
Mr. Countryman. The Communist Party of the United States ?
392 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Butler. The Communist Party of any place.
Mr. Countryman. All riofht.
Mr. Arens. I thouo-lit it was elemental that there was at least an
affinity between the Communist Party of the United States and the
M^orld Communist movement.
Mr. Countryman. There may be. There may be.
Mr. Arens. You do not know whether there is or not?
Mr. Countryman. I simply asked what Communist Party.
Mr. Arens. Well, the Communist Party of the United States.
Mr. Countryman. Since these bills talks in terms of the Communist
Party of the United States and the world Communist movement, I
want to know what you are talkinof about.
If I were satisfied that you had such an organization dedicated to
sabotage, espionage, and treason, if I were satisfied that that was that
sort of an organization I wouldn't object to its being labeled as such.
My objection to the Subversives Activities Control Act is that the
procedures it sets up for making these determinations are so vague
and so unrelated to the real danger that I have no faith in the deter-
minations that come out under it.
Senator Butler. When did that act become effective ?
Mr. Arens. September 23, 1950.
Senator Butler. Have there been any persons or organizations that
you can name now that have been harmed by that act ?
ISIr. Countryman. We have not gotten far enough under it. Pro-
cedure has moved very slowly under that act for a variety of reasons.
Senator Butler. Is that not a great recommendation for the legis-
lation?
Mr. Country:man. No, because it is picking up speed right now.
I think it is fair to say that, with the exception of the case of the
Communist Party of the United States, which the Board is now
through with, the Board is just recently getting under way.
Senator Butler. Do you believe that that Board would take any
steps that would derogate from the rights of the American people, and,
if it did take such steps, do you not believe that the courts of this coun-
try would rectify that error ?
INIr. Countryman. I think it is quite possible that the Board might
take such steps. I am not confident that the courts would rectify the
error for two reasons : One, because resort to the courts is costly and
everyone can't afford to do it; and two, because the courts are not in-
fallible either.
Senator Butler. Is there not some provision in this legislation
that anyone found to be harmed will be compensated for the damage
done ?
]\Ir. Countryman. I think not, Senator.
Senator Butler. Is there not such a provision in one of these bills?
Mr. Countryman. I think not. And, even if you consider putting
it in. how do you compensate a man for loss of his reputation ?
Senator Butler. The man does not lose his reputation if the court
ultimately holds him innocent.
Do you mean that bringing of the charge ruins his reputation ?
Mr. Countryman. Yes.
Senator Bt^tler. If it did mine would be very scant. I can tell
you that.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 393
The hearing will suspend for a short time.
(A brief recess was had.)
Senator Butler. The subcommittee will come to order.
Mr. Arens will proceed.
Mr. Arens. May I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the wit-
ness, if he desires to do so, just continue his statement ?
Mr. Countryman. That is quite all right.
Under Senate bill 23, every labor union official or employee holds
his organizational affiliations, including his membership in his own
union, at his peril. At any time a determination by the the Subver-
sive Activities Control Board, operating under the definitions which
Mr. Arens has read and on the evidence I have described, may render
him ineligible for his union office or employment.
Under such a law the first amendment's guarantee of free associa-
tion becomes meaningless to the labor officer or employee.
Senator Butler. Doctor, is that an immediate suspension or is that
after a full trial and recourse to the courts ?
Mr. Countryman. It is immediately upon the Subversive Activities
Control Board finding that an organization to which he belongs is
either a Communist-front or a Conununist-action organization, and
the Board ordering the organization to register. It is from that
point on.
Senator Butij:r. Is there any provision in the law which gives him
time to purge himself of his membership or of his alleged Communist
activities?
Mr. Countryman. He has his choice. He can withdraw from the
organization or give up his union officership or employment. But he
has to do one or the other. If he tries to hold on to both he is guilty
of a criminal offense.
Senator Butler. And if the finding of the Board is that he himself
is not a Communist but that the organization he belongs to is Com-
munist-dominated and Communist-controlled, or a Communist-front
or Communist-action organization within the meaning of the act, he
is nevertheless put to that election ?
Mr. CouNTRYisrAN. That is true, although the act doesn't contem-
plate making determination about the individual, this act, Senate
bill 23.
]Mr. Arens. Let us get the record clear here. The man has an
option. He can stay in this organization which lias been found, on
the basis of a final order of the Board, to be substantially controlled,
dominated, and directed by the world Communist movement. He can
either stay in that organization or he has to get out of this labor
organization? Is that correct?
Mr. Countryman. That is correct. And that I say is inconsistent
with the first amendment's guarantee of free association.
]\Ioreover, the union officer or employee may incur the sanctions of
the law and be put to that option, not because of any fault on his part
but because of something thought to be wrong with a substantial
number of members of the organization to which he belongs.
394 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Such a law is a dangerous departure from our Anglo-Saxon tra-
dition that sanctions are imposed only on the basis of a person's own
guilt.
Senator Butler. We have here a branch, an agency of the Govern-
ment, set up under the Internal Security Act of 1950. It has a full
hearing, and after a full hearing, an opportunity for everybody to be
heard, they find that this man X is a member of a Communist-domi-
nated organization. Then he has 1 of 2 alternatives. He can
either divorce himself from that organization or he must give up
his ernployment in a plant making top-secret material for the defense
of this country. Do you think that is an unreasonable election to
which to put a man ?
Mr. Countryman. Yes, I do; and I would like to point out that
that would be true whether he is working in the defense plant or not.
He would still be put to the same option.
Senator Butler. All right.
Mr. Arens. I think, to clear the record, you would agree with this,
would you not. Doctor, that the party aggrieved has full recourse to
the courts, and that the courts would be the final arbiters as to whether
or not any given organization is in truth and in fact substantially
controlled, directed, and dominated by the world Communist move-
ment ?
Mr. CouNiTiYMAN. The court would determine whether, on a pre-
ponderance of the evidence, the finding of the Board was correct.
Mr. Arens. It would be on the basis of the entire record in the
proceedings, would it not, including all the evidence?
Mr. Countryman. Yes, it would.
Senator Butler. Then can you say that there has been any denial
of due process in such a case ?
Mr. Countryman. No. Due process is complied with so far as
the procedures of the Board are concerned.
I do not think that the standards which the Board is directed to
apply comply with substantive due process.
Senator Butler. I want to ask you another question. Do you feel
that we should all have the right to associate with anybody with whom
we want to associate even though we know the person with whom we
are associating is dedicated to the overthrow of our Government by
force and violence ?
Mr. Countryman. I think you have the right to associate with such
persons if you want to ; yes. That is what I read the first amendment
to guarantee.
Mr. Arens. But you do not have a right to associate with these
people in conspiracy, do you ?
Mr. Coi'ntryman. That is an entirely different question.
Mr. Arens. And the Communist Party of the United States and the
world Communist movement is a conspiracy, is it, Doctor?
Mr. Countryman. So the courts have said.
Mr. Arens. You do not agree that the world Communist movement
is a conspiracy dedicated to the overthrow of the Government of the
United States by force and violence?
Mr. Countryman. What do you mean by conspiracy ?
Mr. Arens. Well, now, I think the word "conspiracy' is a term
which has been adequately defined repeatedly by the courts.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 395
Mr. Countryman. I don't know. Mr. Justice Jackson says it practi-
cally defies definition.
That is the trouble with that concept.
I will admit that the courts have said that the Communist Party is a
conspiracy.
I will point out, operating on what the courts have said, that that
does not mean, and the courts did not mean, that I, by associating
with members of the Communist Paity, just by associating with them
also become a member of the conspiracy.
Mr. Aeens. How about if you join up with the Communist Party as
a knowing, active, conscious member? Are you then part of a
conspiracy?
Mr. Countryman. Yes ; I think the court would say I was.
Senator Butler asked me whether I was free to associate with these
people. I replied that I think I am.
Mr. Arens. But the association that is prohibited in this contem-
plated legislation is association in an organization which has been
found by a board, duly authorized and established by the Congress of
the United States, subject to judicial review, to be substantially domi-
nated and controlled by the world Communist movement. Isn't that
correct ?
Mr. Countryman. Or that it is a Communist-front organization.
Mr. Arens. Which, in turn, is controlled by a Communist-action
organization, or which is primarily operated for the purpose of giving
aid and support to a Communist-action organization, a Communist
foreign government or the world Communist movement. Isn't that
correct ?
Mr. Countryman. That is correct.
Senator Butler. And, Doctor, as you know, being a professor of
law, the courts are very reluctant to define fraud, because those who
would commit fraud would then know how to commit a fraud without
coming within the definition.
Do you not think that it may be well to have some such situation
.as that in this case?
Mr. Countryman. Yes indeed, but I think you have the additional
problem here that a court has trouble even in any particular case
spelling out why this is a conspiracy. The concept conspiracy is one
of the most elusive concepts in the law. I think most lawyers
would agree.
Senator Butler. One of the hardest indictments to prove is a con-
spiracy indictment. I think that all lawyers will agree.
Mr. Countryman. And the hardest to explain after proven as to
how it was proved.
Senator Bufler. Continue, doctor.
Mr. Countryman. If the union officer or employee does not exercise
this option which the act puts him to, he becomes subject to criminal
penalties, and in the imjposition of those criminal penalties Senate bill
23 would deprive the oflicer or employee of much of the constitutional
protection customarily afi'orded.
In the first place, it seems to me impossible to reconcile the defini-
tions of Communist-action and Communist- front organizations which
Mr. Arens has read repeatedly, and the definition of the world Com-
mimist movement in section II with what the Supreme Court has
396 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
characterized as the first essential of due process of law, that essential
being, and I quote from the Supreme Court:
That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense mu3t be sufficiently
explicit to inform those who are subject under it what conduct on their part
will render them liable to those penalties.
How a man can look at these definitions and determine what conduct
on his part will render him liable to the penalties of this act is
beyond me.
Senator Buti.er. Then you have a perfect defense to the act. There
should be no objection to it.
Mr. CouNRTYMAN. That it is unconstitutional?
Senator Butler. That is right.
Mr. Countryman. I don't think that the Senate committee or the
Senate should concern itself with passing unconstitutionality.
Senator Butler. I can assure vou that this Senator will not so con-
cern himself.
Mr. Arens. You. are talking about legislation before this committee
except that it ties in with the Internal Security Act wliich was passed
on September 30, 1950,
Mr. Countryman. Yes. But the whole effect of Senate bill 23 is to
bring labor union officers and employees under the Internal Securit}'
Act.
Mr. Arens. Onl}^ those who are identified as active, knowing, con-
scious participants in an organization which is Communist controlled
or which is dedicated to the forcible overthrow of the Government of
the United States. Isn't that correct ?
Mr. CouNTiiYMAN. No. Not acting, knowing, conscious partic-
ipants. Any labor union officer or employee wlio is a member. That
is all the bill says — who is a member in such an organization.
Senator Buit.er. Yes, but after the trial by the Subversive Activ-
ities Control Board and the finding by that Board that the organiza-
tion of which he is a member is a Communist organization dedicated
to the overthrowing of the Government of the United States by force
and violence, if he then stays in he becomes a conscious member of the
conspiracy.
Mr. CouNTRY3fAN. Not uccessarily.
Mr. Arens. Aren't the hearings of the Board public? Isn't the
finding of the Board public?
]Mr. Countryman. I will get to that point in one moment.
This bill would deprive the accused of many of the procedural safe-
guards which are imposed upon criminal proceedings. Under this bill
it is a crime for a labor-union officer or employee to hold his office or
his employment if he is a member of an organization ordered by the
Subversive Activities Control Board to register as a Communist-action
or a Communist-front organization, and if he has notice of the Board's
order. But under section 13 (k) of the Subversive Activities Control
Act, publication of the Board's order in the Federal Register is made
to constitute notice to the officer or employee.
I am sure that both Mr. Arens and Senator Butler realize that the
Federal Register is not light reading, and that simply to impose upon
every union officer or employee the burden of reading that thing everj'-
day is a terrible burden, and that, whether he reads it or not, he is
charged with notice of what is contained in it by this act.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 397
Senator Butler. I will say that that may be an onerous respon-
sibility, but I daresay that there is not a labor organization in America
today that does not read it or have somebody read it or keep up with
everything in it, and I know that there is no business organization that
does not do the same thing.
Mr. Aeens. Particularly if that organization has, for months, been
before the Subversive Activities Control Board on the issue of whether
it is Communist controlled.
Mr. Countryman. The charge may not be against a union. The
charge may be against some other organization to which the business
agent of local 16 belongs, and the business agent of local 16, just be-
cause he is the business agent of local 16, must read the Federal
Register every day, and check it to see whether the SACB has found
any organization to which he belongs to be a Communist-action or a
Coimnunist-front organization.
The only issues left open to an accused in a criminal trial would be,
then, as this bill provides, whether he is a member of the organization
which the Board found to be of the proscribed sort.
Senator Butler. In other words, it presumes him to be a conspira-
tor, and the only question to be resolved is whether or not he is a
member ? That is your view ?
Mr. Countryman. The only question to be resolved is whether he is
a member of the organization.
Senator Butler. If he is, he is automatically presumed to be a
conspirator ?
Mr. Countryman. I presume so, although the act doesn't say so.
The propriety of the Board's order can only be challenged by an
appeal from the order under section 15 of the Subversive Activities
Control Act. On that appeal the Board is to be affirmed if its findings
are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, so that, with respect
to two of the most important ingredients of the criminal offense, 1, the
question of the union officer's personal culpability, and, 2, the question
of the organization's culpability, the union officer is deprived of any
right to litigate those issues in the criminal proceeding.
That means rhat the grand jury which presents the indictment
against him need not consider those issues, that the trial jury which
may convict him won't hear evidence on those issues, and that in his
criminal proceeding he will not be able to confront before the trial
jury the witnesses who testified against him originally.
Senator Butler. In other words, that complaint goes to this situa-
tion : We have member X of an organization which has been found by
the Government of the United States to be a Communist-action organ-
ization or a Communist-front organization, and, after that finding,
the man can keep on doing all that he has been doing, and each of the
individuals of that organization can keep on doing all that they have
been doing irrespective of that finding, and be free of any penalty
for it. You feel that that is wrong ?
Mr. Countryman. Tliat is not true.
Senator Butler. Then explain your proposition. From the way
you testified I got the impression that you felt that it was wrong to
take any sanctions against a person who is a member of that sort of
organization knowing it to be that kind of organization.
43903—54 26
398 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. CouxTRYiMAN. I am pointing out that sanctions are imposed
upon him whether he knows it or not.
Mr. Arens. Section V (a) (I) of the act says it shall be unlawful,
and so forth —
for auy member of such organization, with kno\vledi;e or notice that such organi-
zation is so registered or that such order has become final. * * *
Mr. Countryman. Right.
Mr. Arens. And this provision of Senate bill 23, introduced by
Senator McCarran, would amend section V (a) by adding a paragraph
(e) which would be within the overall requirements, that the member,
before he would be found guilty, would have to first have that Imowl-
edge or notice that the organization is i-egistered or is under a final
order.
Mr. Countryman. Yes, but the notice consists of no more than the
Board publishing its order in the Federal Register.
Look at section 13 (k) of the act. This may happen: A man who
is a member of the organization which the Board has found to be of
the wrong sort under the act, has no knowledge of the Board's order.
It has been published in the Federal Register but he didn't read it.
So, he has committed a crime under Senate bill 23.
The only things that have to be proven against him are, (1) that
he is a member of the organization, and (2) that the Board did in
fact enter an order against the organization and published it in the
Federal Register.
That makes up the crime.
Senator Butler. Is the evidence under section (k) prima facie or
absolutely binding?
Mr. CouNTRY'MAN. When any order of the Board requiring regis-
tration of the organization becomes final —
the Board shall publish in the Federal Register the fact that an order has become
final, and the publication thereof shall constitute notice to all members of the
organization.
It is conclusive. It is not even open to dispute.
So that, as to the question of his own personal knowledge and as to
the merits of the Board's order, there is no trial in the criminal pro-
ceeding, where a man is entitled to indictment by grand jury, to a
jury trial, to the right to confront witnesses, and to a presumption of
innocence until guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Mr. Arens. Professor, would it cure your objection, and would you
then be for this legislation if, on page 2 of this McCarran Act, S. 23,
it were amended in paragraph (e) as follows, by adding this clause:
With personal knowledge or notice that the organization of which he is a
member has been so registered or so ordered to be registered?
Mr. Countryman. That would cure one objection.
Mr. Arens. Would you then be for this legislation, that section?
Mr. Countryman. No. I have still a number of other objections.
That would cure one. It wouldn't even cure my other objection
here, that whether or not the evidence supports the finding against the
organization is not tested in the criminal proceeding where the
accused is entitled to be presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond
all reasonable doubt, but is tested in the civil proceeding where the
order is to be sustained by the preponderance of the evidence.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 399
Mr. Arens. Would you be for this legislation if we provided that
the order of the Board must be based upon substantial probative
evidence establishing that the organization to be proscribed is sub-
stantially directed, dominated, or controlled by the foreign govern-
ment or foreign organization?
Mr. Countryman. I doubt very much if that makes any change at
all in the act as it now reads.
Mr. Arens. You just don't want any proscription of Communist
organizations ?
Mr. Countryman. You asked my opinion on that point. My
opinion is that there is no difference between substantial probative
evidence and the preponderance of the evidence which the act now
talks about.
Mr. Arens. Well, then, do you want any proscription of these
organizations?
Mr. Countryman. I don't want this form. I haven't considered all
possible forms. I don't want this form.
Mr. Arens. What form would you suggest so that we could pro-
scribe these Communist organizations and keep Communists out of
labor organizations and notify the American people of what organi-
zations are Communist controlled ?
Mr. Countryman. I don't think you can, consistently with the
Constitution, do that by any form of bill.
Mr. Arens. You know that the Foreign Agent Registration Act
does that ?
Mr. Countryman. It does.
Mr. Arens. The Foreign Agent Registration Act requires registra-
tion and notice to the world of persons who are serving the interests
of a foreign power, does it ?
Mr. Countryman. Yes.
Mr. Arens. Would you be for that?
Mr. Countryman. Yes, but that is not what this act does. This act
sets up all sorts of tests in the place of finding that the person serves
the interests of a foreign power. It is true that that is what you are
aiming at. I recognize that. But the devices you use are such that
you have all sorts of other things.
Mr. Arens. You do not think there are any devices that can be
evolved to do what the Internal Security Act does ?
Mr. Countryman. No ; I have no faith in this prophylactic legisla-
tion, I think it is harmful and futile.
Mr. Arens. Wlien you say prophylactic you think apparently that
the legislation is designed only to preclude spying and sabotage ?
Mr. Countryman. Whatever falls within your concept of sub-
version is what you are aiming at, and you want to catch it before it
happens.
Mr. Arens. Do you not think it is healthful to let the American
people know what organizations are Connnunist controlled so that
they can withhold their funds if they want to ?
Mr. Countryman. If we were skillful enough to be able to identify
such organizations, that would be helpful.
Mr. Arens. You think it is beyond the skill of man ?
Mr. Countryman. I do indeed.
400 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. Beyond the skill of man or beyond the technique of
lawyers to devise language by which we can identify or set standards
by which Connnunist organizations can be identified ?
Mr. Countryman. I do indeed.
Mr. Arexs. Then I would personally' say that we are in awfully
bad shape. Wouldn't you, Senator?
Senator Butf.er. It would seem so to me.
Mr. Arens. Do you think that the health dei)artment is overstep-
ping itself in undertaking to identify poisons, or give the identifica-
tion of poisons that are put into your medicine or into concoctions
\\hicli are used in the home?
Mr. Countryman. No ; I do not. I think that medical science was
fortunate in having been able to devise tests much moi'e reliable than
anyone in the field of social science — and that includes lawyers — has
been able to do.
Mr. Arens. Do you think that we can identify Communists?
Mr. Countryman. No ; I don't think you can with any reliability.
If you set out a broad program to identify all Communists, you are
going to have a lot of innocent people. You might get some Com-
munists. You will also get a lot of innocent people,
Mr. Arens. Assuming that we have a program by* which we have
undercover agents in the Communist Party who serve there, and to
work with people in this conspiracy, and then break with the party
and come out and swear before God, before a congressional commit-
tee, that they have served with Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z in this Com-
munist conspiracy. Isn't that sufficient identification for you that Mr.
X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z are Communists ?
Mr. Countryman. If I could cross-examine that man it would bs.
And that is j^recisely what I suggested at the outset, that we have
these laws that are aimed at subversive acts, and leave it with the
FBI and undercover agents and others to police those laws and not
try to go beyond that. When we try to go beyond that we get into
the sort of difficulties which I have been describing.
Senator Butler. In other words, you do not feel that the Congress
should take any part in this at all ?
Mr. Countryman. I think that Congress has done all it can do,
and by "can" I mean both constructively and effectively when it de-
fines the acts with which we are concerned.
Senator Butler. Let us take the Hiss case, for instance. The Hiss
case would never have been brought to light had it not been for the
Congress of the United States.
Mr. Countryman. That is correct.
Senator Butler. There are many cases on the subject which would
not have been brought to light except for the congressional com-
mittees.
Mr. Countryman. With the exception of the Hiss case — and what
the congressional committee did turn up was that Hiss had committed
espionage back in 1938 — with the exception of that case I know of no
case turned up by a congressional committee.
Senator Butler. I feel that the Harry Dexter Wliite case is a case
completely in point.
Mr. Coun-^tryman. Senator Butler, we have never seen the evidence
against Harry Dexter White.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 401
Senator Butler. Well, we have had the testimony of the Director
of the FBI.
Mr. Countryman. He didn't tell us what the evidence was.
Senator Buti.er. It seemed to me to be conclusive that Harry Dexter
White was a member of the Communist Party and was actively en-
gaged in Communist activity for the whole time that he occupied a
high position in the Treasury of the United States. His evidence is
precisely that, and he sent, as you noticed from the press, repeated
notices to many departments in the executive branch of this Govern-
ment reciting those facts, and absolutely nothing was done about it.
Do you not think that the people of the United States have a right,
through their Congress, to do things when the executive branch does
not do them ? Or do you think that the Congress should just sit by and
let this conspiracy go on unheeded and without doing anything about
it?
Mr. Countryman. I don't think there is anything you can do that
is effective.
Senator Butler. I think there is a lot that we can do, and there is a
lot that we are doing.
Mr. Arens. Haven't the courts repeatedly held that the Communist
Party of the United States is dedicated to the overthrow^ of the Gov-
ernment by force and violence?
Mr. Countryman. Yes.
Mr. Arens. They did that on the basis of evidence, did they not?
Mr. Countryman. Yes.
Mr. Arens. Now, then, has the SACB found that the Communist
Party of the United States is a Communist-action organization within
the meaning of that term used in the Internal Security Act ?
Mr. Countryman. Yes, within that meaning of that term, it has.
Mr. iVRENs. Has that not been helpful? Has that not been
progress ?
JMr. Countryman. Did you feel any more enlightened about the
Communist Party of the United States when the SACB got through?
Mr. Arens. No, because I have been in this business for a great
many years and have known for a long time that the Communist
Party is a foreign-controlled conspiracy, but there are many people
who do not know it and do not believe it.
Mr. Countryman. I don't think that that advanced us anywhere to
liave the SACB make that determination with respect to the Com-
munist Party. People don't read that either.
Mr. Arens. Now let us see: under the law, if an organization is
found to be a Communist-action organization that organization must
label its literature, must it not ?
Mr. Countryman. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. So that, if the Communist Party, assuming that that
order becomes final, issues propaganda over the length and breadth
of this land, the individual who picks up that propaganda in his home
and reads it will know the source of that propaganda, will he not ?
Mr. Countryman. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. And he will know that what he is reading is Communist
propaganda.
Mr. Countryman. He will know that that is what it says.
Senator Butler. Is that not the statutory provision?
402 SUBVERSWE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Countryman. If the Communist Party resorts to that sort of
propaganda, which, so far as I know, it never has, and all the evidence
at^ainst it indicates that it is a secretive organization which never
would, you could accomplish that nnich by simply bringing the Com-
munist Party under the Foreign Agent Registration Act which you
talked about a while ago.
Mr. Arens. Would you be for that procedure?
Mr. Countryman. I don't object to bringing the Communist Party
under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.
Mr. Arens. Why is that?
Mr. Countryman. I see no objection to that. I see none of the
objections which I stated to this bill.
My objection is not as to the Communist Party but as to all the other
organizations and their members who are going to get in trouble by all
the vague sorts of evidence contemplated by this bill.
Senator Butler. Proceed.
Mr. Countryman. Unless there are other questions I will move on
to another bill, Senate bill 1606, which, if I may paraphrase it
roughly — and you correct me if I am wrong — would deprive a union
of its functions as the bargaining agent, and as the representative of its
members under the Labor-JNIanagement Relations Act, if the SACB
finds that it is substantially directed, dominated or controlled by any
individual or individuals who are or ever have been members of the
Comnmnist Party, Communist-action organization or Communist
front, or who have consistenly aided, sup]3orted or in any manner
contributed to or furthered the activities of such organizations or of
any other totalitarian dictatorship.
"Totalitarian dictatorship" also gets a special definition in the
Subversive Activities Control Act.
Under this bill the organizational affiliations of all those who sub-
stantially direct, dominate or control the labor unions are held at the
peril of the union losing its entire function as a bargaining representa-
tive, and the members losing the union's protection if again the Sub-
versive Activities Control Board should find that some organization to
which those who direct, dominate, or control the labor union belong
is a Communist-front or a Communist-action group.
This again seems to me inconsistent with the first amendment's
guaranty of freedom of association.
Mr. Arens. Do you think that an organization which is in fact
Communist controlled. Communist directed, should be certified as the
bargaining agency by the National Labor Relations Board?
Mr. CouNTRYiNiAN. I dou't See why not. But that is what this bill
is aimed at anyway.
Mr. Arens. Let us get to that issue for just a moment so that we get
our basic ideas clear.
The National Labor Relations Board will not certify a conipany
union as a union, will it ?
Mr. Countryman. No.
Mr. Arens. Why will it not do so ?
Mr. CouNTRY^iAN. Bccausc a company union doesn't serve the func-
tion which the labor union is supposed to perform under the act.
Mr. Arens. It is because it is controlled by an outside agency?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 403
Mr. Countryman. By the other side of the bargaining process, not
any outside agency; the other side of the bargaining agency, the
employer.
Mr. Arens. a company union is not really controlled by the em-
ployee, is it ?
Mr. Countryman. It is controlled by the employer.
Mr. Arens. Why should the National Labor Relations Board be
permitted or be authorized to certify, as a bargaining agency to bar-
gain for employees, an entity or organism which is not controlled by
the em])loyees but which is controlled by the world Communist
conspiracy ?
Mr. Countryman. If it is not controlled by the employees it
shouldn't be certified. If it is controlled by the employees and they
are willing to comply with the policies of what you describe as the
world Communist conspiracy, that seems to me to be their business.
If you want to amend the Natioiial Labor Relations Act to say that the
Board shall not certify an organization, a labor union, which isn't
controlled by its own membership, I have no objection to that at all.
I think that would be fine,
Mr. Arens. What if the membership at the top, at least, are Com-
munists and have seized control of the organization ?
Mr. Countryman. And they can't be controlled by the member-
ship?
Mr. Arens. Yes ; because the membership does not have control of
the security records.
Mr. Countryman. How does anybody know? You are assuming
the whole difficult question of proof. How do you prove that a man
is a Communist?
Mr. Arens. You apparently do not think you can prove it.
Mr. Countryman. This procedure isn't going to expose a single
individual as a Communist. Not a single individual is this procedure
is going to be exposed as a Communist. It doesn't direct the Board to
ever inquire into the question of whether a man is a Communist. You
find out something about an organization and, bango, you impose
sanctions on all its members, and the whole thing contemplates that
there may be perfectly innocent members.
Senator BuTLEfe. I do not think there is any question that there are
many, many perfectly innocent members of such organizations.
Mr. Countryman. That is the trouble, and these sanctions are im-
posed on anybody who is a member of one of these organizations.
Mr. Arens. How are you going to drive Communists out of the
labor organizations?
Mr. Countryman. I would leave it up to the labor organizations.
Mr. Arens. How are the individual members of the lalDor organi-
zations, when an election comes up tomorrow, going to know that
Mr. X or Mr. Y or Mr. Z is a Communist?
Mr. Countryman. They have as much information as we the citi-
zens of the country have, and we have been doing pretty well.
Mr. Arens. You are the one that wants to leave it to the FBI.
Mr. Countryman. I don't want the FBI to be giving out informa-
tion to either labor unions or private citizens.
Senator Butler. Do you not believe that there is an overriding
problem here of which the Congress must take notice ?
404 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Countryman. I don't think these bills should override the
Constitution.
Senator Butler. Nobody wants to do that.
Mr. Countryman. I am willing to concede that these bills are
motivated by a genuine concern for what is considered a real menace.
Senator Butler. I can assure you that that is true. Nobody wants
to hurt any labor union. Nobody wants to override the Constitution
of the United States. I have been fighting for weeks to preserve it.
I believe that the unions have done their best. I believe that the
CIO, for instance, did the best it could back in 1949 to rid itself
of Communist-dominated unions, but still those unions flourish. They
have the protection of every law. The CIO has said that there is
no question in the world that these labor organizations are not true
labor organizations but are nothing but Communist fronts taking
their dictation from Moscow.
Mr. Countryman. Our differences are not so much about what the
facts may be but how great the danger is, and I think that it has been
grossly exaggerated. Our differences, too, are about what the proper
procedures are.
Senator Butler. I do not see how you can say that it has been
grossly exaggerated. In my humble opinion, we have not scratched
the surface. You find Communists in the least expected places.
Mr. Countryman. Congress has been enacting measure after mea-
sure and has aimed at catching the Communist infiltrators, as you
descrilje them, and the more measures that are passed the more we
get alarmed, and we pass more measures, and the alarm increases.
It seems to me that the record of this sort of legislation demonstrates
its futility.
Senator Butler. Well, you would not suggest that we give up,
would you ?
Mr. Countryman. I suggest that we give up passing the type of
law which I describe as a prophylactic law designed to convict a man
before he does anything. I think we should also repeal the ones that
we have enacted.
Senator Butler. These laws have not yet been passed, but we are
here trying to find out what is best for America and the people of
America. I propose to expend every energy I have to find that out
and to see that appropriate laws are enacted for the good of America.
IVIr. Countryman. I don't think these are in the best interest of
the people.
Senator Butler. We want to hear from you, and we appreciate you
coming. I hope that you have had every opportunity to say what
you feel about these laws.
]Mr. Countryman. I appreciate that.
I have just a couple of more words about Senate bill 1606. I pointed
out that it imposes its sanctions regardless of any conceivable fault
on the part of the particular individual who is in a position of sub-
stantial domination or control of his union just because there is some-
thing wrong with some other organization that he belongs to. This
loss is imposed and takes its effect on the union and its membership by
disqualifying the union as a bargaiiiing representative and by depriv-
ing the membership of the union of the protection of their union.
That loss is im])osed under the same standards of proof and the same
definitions of offenses as are incorporated into Senate bill 23.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 405
Senator Butler. In that connection let me ask you a question. It
has been suggested by leaders in one large labor organization that we
attack the problem administratively, that the department of the Gov-
ernment concerned withdraw the contract right of the corporation
or company holding the contract in the manufacture of defense ma-
terial. Do you think that you could get at it that way ?
Mr. Countryman. On what occasion ? I don't understand that. On
what occasions would you withdraw the contract i
Senator Buixer. On occasions when we know that the bargaining
agent certified by the National Labor Relations Board at a given plant
has been designated as being Communist dominated by the Subversive
Activities Control Board, and the Department of Defense or other
department concerned would withdraw the contract from them, take
the work away from them, take it right out of their plant so that these
people could not work on that work.
Mr. Countryman. You have changed the sanction but you liave
still the same standard of proof.
Senator Butler. You would be against that '?
Mr. Countryman. Yes.
Senator Butler. That is the way labor would go at this problem.
Mr, Countryman. Would labor incorporate the definitions in the
Subversive Activities Control Act? I would be surprised.
Senator Buixer. I would like to liave you read at this point the
statement made by Mr. Carey, the Secretary of the CIO, as to how he
would handle this proposition. I think Mr. Carey's wa)^ of handling it
would be as I have outlined. If he found that a Communist-dominated
union had been certified he would take the contract away from the
company.
Mr. Countryman, I don't quarrel with your version of what Mr.
Carey said.
Senator Butler. There would be a meeting. They would all
huddle around the table at the Defense Department or some other
agency. They would meet around this table and say, "Yes, we be-
lieve what the FBI says about this company. We will take that
contract away from the employer."
Mr. Countryman. I would not agree with that procedure at all.
Senator Butler. You would not agree with that ?
Mr. Countryman. No.
One thing about Senate bill 1606 which seems to me worse than
Senate bill 23, if I understand it correctly, and I would appreciate
enlightenment on this point, is that it seems to me that under this bill
the sanctions are imposed regardless of the present fault of anyone;
that it is enough that those who control the union are or ever have
been members of an organization found by the Board to be a Commu-
nist-action or Communist-front organization.
Senator Butler. Well, professor, you know the difficulty we have
had under the Taft-Hartley Law in connection with the Connnunist
affidavit.
Mr. Countryman. I appreciate that.
Senator Butler. And we know that it is the practice or is said to
be a practice that a lot of persons filing those affidavits leave the Com-
munist Party the day before they sign the affidavit and then they
sign the next day.
Mr. Countryman. Yes,
406 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Butler. So that is designed to get at that sort of situation.
Mr. CouN'rRYMAN. I can see that, but you see it also hits the man
who 10 years ago was a member and, because of honest disagreement
with the organization over the very policies with which he may now
be concerned, withdrew.
Senator Butler. We do have such people. I have seen a number
of them.
Mr, Countryman. Yes, and they are within the literal terms of
your bill. That is another instance where it seems to me that this sort
of procedure may hit innocent people quite apart from the objective
of the bill.
I had not planned to take time to consider in as full detail the
provisions of House bill 3993.
Senator Hill. That bill is the same as Senate bill 1254.
Mr. Countryman. That was my assumption, but I wasn't able to
see a copy of Senate bill 1254. However, I did want to point out a
few instances in which that bill seems to me to go beyond the other
two which we have been considering. It reaches not only people
who are members of organizations found to be Conmumist-action or
Communist-front organizations but also people who are found to have
aided, supported, or publicized the program of, or participated in the
activities of such an organization. To that extent it is more sweep-
ing. It is also more sweeping in that it broadens the list of proscribed
organizations. It includes not only Commvuiist-action and Com-
munist-front organizations but also organizations listed by the
Attorney General under the Federal employee loyalty program.
If a person has been a member since it was listed, that is qualified
to that extent.
Senator Butler. Your chief objection to that is that it destroys
the right of association ?
Mr. Countryman. Yes. Then it visits its sanctions not only on
union officers, on employees and those who control the union, as the
preceding two bills would, but also on the union itself, as Senate bill
1606 would ; and, finally, in addition to what the other bills would do,
on those ''influential in the union," whatever that means.
Then, to the definitions of Communist-action organization, Com-
munist-front organization and world Communist movement, which
I have objected to as being too vague, this bill adds an equally vague
definition of something called a Communist labor representative.
Again a man is subjected to a law in which he can't read or tell in
advance as to how he should govern his conduct.
In its criminal sanctions this bill goes beyond the objections I made
to Senate Bill 23. Here again some of the essential ingredients of the
criminal offense cannot be tried in the criminal case. You cannot
test out whether the Board was right in proscribing this organization,
in the criminal proceeding. Moreover, under this Act the Board is
directed to base some of its finding on the Attorney General's list which
was made in an ex parte proceeding in which neither the organizations
listed nor their members were allowed to participate, a list which the
Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit has described as a purely hearsay
declaration which is of no probative value.
Senator Butler. If the bill provided for a de novo trial in the
criminal case would that cure your objections ?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 407
Mr. Countryman. That would cure my objections on the criminal
proceeding on all save the question of definitions, which would seem
to me to be too vague.
Senator Butler. You would not cure the right to association in the
corollary, in the right to pick those to represent you that you would
like to have ?
Mr. Countryman. That is correct. All three of these bills seem to
me to represent what we have been concerned with to an increasing
degree in the last few years, and that is what I alluded to before, the
attempt to set up some sort of legal procedures which will enable us to
identify and put restrictions on people we consider potentially sub-
versive. We try to do it, or, at least, we don't limit our identification
to people who have actually done anything against the national
security. We try to catch also those who we think are going to do
something in the future and catch them before they can do it.
It seems to me that our experience with that sort of legislation is
not such as to encourage its continuation.
Senator Butler. Do you not think that they have done something
when they join that type of organization ?
Mr. Countryman. Not anything that by itself is of any threat to the
•country at all.
Senator Butler. Will you explain that? If you become a party to
a diabolical conspiracy why have you not done something that is
inimical to the best interests of the United States?
Mr. Countryman. Well, the organizations w^hich get proscribed are
not those which the Board finds to be diabolical conspiracies They
^o considerably beyond that under these defiiiitions. If you and I
agree on what is a diabolical conspiracj^, I think we probably also
agree on what they do with the conspirators, but that term has to be
defined, and as it is defined in these bills it seems obvious to me, and
I have tried to point out that it is going to hit a number of innocent
people.
It seems to me that the enactment of this sort of law and its admin-
istration would tend to stir up more and more alarm, and I think more
alarm than the menace w^arrants. And, hence, as I said before, to
provoke more and more measures of this sort, and each new one goes
beyond what the last one did. We keep on doing that without any
inquiry really as to whether the ones we have already enacted really
give protection against subversion, or as to whether any prophylactic
measure can give any protection.
I am sure that if these bills are enacted we will have amendments
broadening the Subversive Activities Control Act further in 2 or 3
years.
Mr. Arens. You are convinced, of course, that a Communist con-
spiracy constantly seeks and provides new conduits for its conspiracy,
constantly is engaged in the secretive, devious process that they have
to engage in to win and control the minds of men to the furtherance of
the objectives of their criminal conspiracy?
Mr. Countryman. Yes, and I think they have a constitutional
right to seek to win the minds of men, too.
Mr. Arens. For that reason it is necessary for the Internal Security
Subcommittee to maintain a constant surveillance over the admin-
istration and operation of the laws and to seek to constantly legislate
408 SUBVERSWE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
to meet tlie new threats that are repeatedly being posed against this
country.
Mr. Countryman. It certainly is your duty to seek to meet threats
posed against this country. I don't think these bills meet the threats.
Senator Butler. Professor, do you believe that they have the right
to seek the minds of men and then turn them against the United States
of America ?
Mr. CouNTRYMzVN. I think that under the proposition we are com-
mitted to in the first amendment that they have the constitutional right
to do that, and I point to the Supreme Court itself, to its decision.
Senator Butler. Even though the Supreme Court of the United
States decides that the Communist conspiracy is dedicated to the over-
throw of this Government by force and violence, you nevertheless feel
that we should let loose in this country persons who are actively re-
cruiting others to that standard ?
Mr. Countryman. I don't think the Supreme Court would allow
you to put in jail people who are recruiting others to the Communist
Party.
Mr. Arens. Professor, let us say that you and I and a crowd of
people here, you with malice in your heart, in order to cause destruc-
tion, jump up and holler, "Fire, fire, fire." Do you think it would be
unconstitutional for the Congress to enact legislation calling that act
to be performed in f uturo a crime ?
Mr. Countryman. You can forbid me to say "Fire" or you can
forbid me to say "Boo," but you cannot forbid my presenting an idea,,
appealing to the rationality of meii.
Senator Butler. Wait a minute. I agree with you wholeheartedly
that you can preach any sort of doctrine you want short of revolution,,
but you cannot preach revolution against the established Government
of this country and expect the Congress to sit by idly and do nothing
about it.
Mr. Countryman. But if the Congress passes blanket laws to for-
bid that, the Supreme Court will knock them down in any instance
where it does not find that circumstances present a clear and present
danger.
Mr. Arens. You do not think the Communist conspiracy presents
a clear and present danger ?
Mr. Countryman. I'he Supreme Court has found that it did in one
instance with respect to its top leaders. I don't understand the De-
partment of Justice to take that position that that decision means
that every member of the Communist Party can be jailed under the
Smith Act ; do you ?
Mr. Arens. No. I would hazard a guess that every member of the
Comnnmist Party, dej^ending on what you meant by membership,
could be jailed under the Smith Act, but I do not think and I do not
believe you think that this Congress is precluded from, say, making
it a criminal olfense to become a knowing, active member of the Com-
munist Party in light of the findings of the Court that the Communist
Party is a conspiracy dedicated to the forcible overthrow of the
GovernmeHt.
Mr. CouNTRYJtAN. I doubt very much if such a law would be con-
stitutional. The proposition to which we are commited is that a man
can belong to an}' organization, advocate any idea, including revolu-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 409
tionary, up to a point where he presents a present danger. Short of
that point, he can even advocate revolution.
Mr. Arens. Of course, I think that the record ought to be clear
that what we are discussing now is in the academic line and not deal-
ing with this legislation.
Mr. Countryman. That is jurisprudence, I guess.
If I may have 2 more minutes, I will conclude.
The further we depart from our traditional practice of punishing
acts by punishing- instead, ])otential actors in the form of really
punishing the thoughts, words, and associations of people we think
are potential actors, the more our constitutional liberties seem to me
to give way.
Since a search for a potential subverter does involve probing into
the minds of the suspect, we have to fall back on things like : What
did he say, or who does he associate with. And when we do that it
seems to me we ride roughshod over the jfirst amendment.
Mr. Arens. Would you point out where in any place in the legisla-
tion there is thouglit control? Any place in this legislation which
proliibits anybody from having any thought he wants to?
Mr. CouNTRYiVLAN. So loug as he doesn't get together with those like-
minded.
Mr. Arens. That have similar thoughts, with them? Is that
correct ?
Mr. Countryman. Have any sort of thoughts.
Mr. Arens. When you say get together with those like-minded you
are not talking, of course, about a conspiracy where people get to-
gether to conspire to overthrow
]\Ir. Countryman. These bills are not aimed, limited to what would
technically be a conspiracy to overthrow the Government. They are
limited to membership in certain organizations, only one of which has
been held by any court to constitute a conspiracy.
When we go down this road of inquiry into a man's membership in,
or in support of, or in participation of the activities of organizations
whose purposes we think we identify, we go till we reach the point
which all three of these bills reach, the point where we are ready to
conclude that, if a man agrees with a jiumber of the organization's
purposes, whether they be good, bad, or indifferent, he must also agree
with the one bad purpose of the organization with which we are
concerned.
Because our procedural guaranties, designed t(^ insure fair trial,
were conceived and developed at a time when we punished acts, they
are inclined to get in the way when we set out to punish words and
associations instead. So we must override these guaranties also if
we are to get on w^th this business. This has been our experience, so
far as I see it.
The record of that experience does not show that we have received
any real protection from subversion in our attempt to fashion and to
administer these prophylactic measures. It shows, instead, that in
this process we have lost a good measure of the protection of the Bill
of Rights.
The three bills before you uoav, to which I have addressed myself,
seem to me further to encroach upon the protection of the Bill of
Rights in the manner in which I have indicated. For this reason I
urge you not to recommend the passage of any of them.
410 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Butler. Thank you, professor. It is very nice to have you
here.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Arens. The next witness is Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. Witt. You may as well swear me.
Senator Butler. In the presence of Almighty God, do j^ou solemnly
pi'omise and declare that the evidence you give before this task force
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Mr. O'Brien. I do.
Mr. Witt, Do you want to swear me. Senator ?
Senator Butler. In the presence of Almighty God, do you solemnly
promise and declare that the evidence you give before this task force
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God ?
Mr. Witt. I do.
Senator Butler. We are getting pushed for time and I have to go
to the floor in 15 minutes. I see that you have here a very extensive
and complete statement, wliich I will now incorporate in the record.
I do not want to cut you off, but if you can do it, I would like to finish
your oral statement or summary within 15 minutes. Can you do that ?
Mr. O'Brien. I imagine I can.
Senator Butler. If you cannot do that and want to supplement this
later or come back later, I would be very glad to hear you.
Mr. Witt. Unfortunately, Senator, it is difficult for us to come back.
We have a good many people here. We will try to do the best we can
and see how we make out.
Senator Butler. We may be able to run a little longer.
(The statement referred to follows:)
Statement by the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers
ON the Butler Bill ( S. 1606) , the Gold water Bill ( S. 1254) , and the McCar-
RAN Bn.L ( S. 23) , Before the Butler Subcommittee of the Internal Security
Subcommittee of the United States Senate, Washington, D. C, March 4,
1954
1. The International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers
The International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, organized in
1893, is one of the most democratic unions on the North American Continent.
Our annual convention, in which only elected rank-and-file delegates from local
unions can vote, is the highest policymaking body in the union. Oar conventions
are models of democratic procedure.
Anyone who has something to say in a mine-mill convention, or conference or
meeting, has his full opportunity to speak his mind. Nobody is booed, nobody is
cut short. Every issue is decided in the American way, by the majority.
One of the key features of our constitution — and this is as old as the union
itself — is the guaranty against discrimination on grounds of race, color, creed, or
political belief. In our union, we never make judgments about a man on the
basis of his skin color, the church he attends, his national origin, his political
opinions. Such questions are never even raised. Our members judge each
other, and judge their leaders, on the single basis of devotion to the cause of win-
ning new gains for the union and its members, and protecting the gains we have
already won.
There is no "test" of orthodoxy for membership in mine-mill. We certainly
do not tolerate any "political tests" such as certain Members of Congress would
like to impose on American trade unions. And when we have an election of
local or international union officers, the members vote on the simple basis of
who they think is the best man for the job. They decide for themselves which
of the candidates will do the best job of carrying out the policies and program
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE EST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 411
of the union, which ones will fight most militantly for the day-by-day needs of
the membership.
Our union officers are elected not at conventions but by secret referendum
vote of the entire membership. All major decisions, including strike action, are
reached by secret referendum vote of the entire membership. Long before the
Taft-Hartley Act was passed, our union had a constitutional provision requiring
presentation of a full report on the union's finances to the entire membership at
least once a year. In the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers Union, every man
makes up his mind in his own way, every man has a right to express any opinion
he likes on any subject, without fear of reprisal. The democracy guaranteed
by our union's constitution embodies the highest principles of the first amend-
ment of the United States Constitution — freedom of speech and press, freedom of
religion, freedom of petition for redress of grievances.
//. We are opposed to the bills before this subcommittee
Before we address ourselves to these bills, we would like to say a few words
about the Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act, and particularly about section
9 (h), the so-called non-Communist affidavit provision of the Taft-Hartloy Act.
The basic principle embodied in tlie Wagner Act, still embodied in Taft-Hartley
for that matter, is the basic principle of modern labor relations in America —
the free choice by labor of its representatives for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with employers. The corollary of the proposition that workers are free
to choose their unions is that unions are free to choose their leaders. Without
one, you cannot have the other.
Those who support the bills before this subcommittee seek to deny workers
the right to select their own unions as well as their own leaders. This attitude
in the field of labor relations is really part of a development which affects all
of American life.
Free choice of leaders and management by Americans in any field — in political
life, in social life, in fraternal activities, in corporations, in other economic
organizations, in trade unions, and in all other types of voluntary associations —
is a keystone of our democratic way of life. The basic guaranties of the first
amendment — freedom of thought and expression in all its manifestations —
become worthless if men are compelled by law to choose or not to choose those
in whom they will repose the confidence of leadership.
The extent to which this principle has been undermined by so-called loyalty
laws and procedures in one form or another is alarming. One great part of our
population is apparently engaged in investigating or questioning the loyalty of
the rest. It has been estimated that at least 10 million Americans are now
directly affected by "loyalty" procedures. This includes millions of Govern-
ment workers, teachers, and scientists on the Federal, State, and local levels ;
millions of aliens ; millions of defense workers. Entertainers on the stage,
movies, and television ; writers, painters, and artists ; tenants in federally
financed housing ; all of these, and millions more, are affected in their livelihoods ;
their good names ; their profes.sions, social life, and personal comfort ; their
peace of mind and their confidence in their fellows. If to the 10 million, we add
families, friends, and others drawn into the maelstrom of inquisition and recrim-
ination, it is safe to say that at least that many more are directly or indirectly
affected.
The effects of this development are demonstrated every day in the week.
Let us take two recent important examples. The first is the charge against
Harry Truman that he deliberately shielded "spies" and "traitors." The other
is the attack against Earl Warren for "following the Marxist line."
An American has to pinch himself to be convinced that he is actually hearing
what he hears on the radio, that he is actually reading what he reads in the
paper. A President of the United States was a monstrous conspirator. The
Chief Justice of the United States is a Moscow agent.
It is small wonder that we are a nation disunited, that neighbor is suspicious
of neighbor, that you're not sure when you tune in for your favorite program on
today's television, you will find last week's star in the cast. Someone, some-
where, may have said yesterday that he is "subversive" — today, he is off the air.
Dean Carl W. Ackerman of the Columbia University School of Journalism, the
leading such school in the country, was a prominent supporter of General Eisen-
hower in November 1952. But some months ago he announced, according to the
New York Times, that he has stopped cooperating with "Federal, State, and
police agencies investigating his students." Dean Ackerman said he feared
American journalism was reaching the end of the era of "drastic independence,"
a phrase coined by Joseph Pulitzer. To quote further from the Times :
112 HIIFU'KftSIVK INKhdKNCK IN CKIiTAIN LAI'.DIt OliGAN IZATIONS
Stil(l(Mi1,K wlio ;iiil i<i|i;ilf ciir-ccrH rfliilcd to |)iihlic jiffjiiis, on n<'\VHi)apftrs, or
In f^ov'crnriK'iil, jikIiihI ry, or ctliic;!! ion, he went, on, can no lon-jcr look forward to
bcint-' "flraslically indopcn'lcnl " t)ccaiisc "I he freedom of individual indejtendent
f'Xi»resKiori of oi)inion on eordrover.sial siiltjeels may he dainaKin;; and possibly
daiiKeroiis to tJu; individual's (l<'sir(! and n(!ces.sity of earniiif^ a living."
'"I'oday," lie add^-d, "the vast majority of toaelir-rs in all fields of instnietion have
N-arned that proniolion and seenrity dejjend ui)oii conformity to the prevailing
<'omnmnily or /lational concejit, of devotion 'to the pnhlic welfare.'
'"Ihere are not, many classrooms in the country today where students are
advised to Ik; drastically iridej)r'ndent.
"Dean Aclcerinan said his o(flc<; was visited by afjents of several Government
defiartments every week.
"Students know that Federal aK'TK'ies investiKi'te their academic records," he
went on. '"riie api)earanco of an aucnt at a newsjiaper ollice or els(!where wliero
tlie student may have; been temporarily ein|)lr>yed raises a si;,'nal of suspicion.
'J'tu? fact that re^iKters is that 'X' \h being investit,'ated."
We have chosen our two examples conc-ernin;,' ex-I'resident 'I'ruman and Chief
.lust ice Warren not, merely because they relate to the two most (;xalt-ed ollices
in our democia<-y. We have chosen them also b(M-aus(! tiu^y illustrate the most
fundamental objection to tli(!S(; riunpant, attacks on dec-ency and on freedom, and
thatis that these attacks are not really aimed at C'ommunists. Since tJie theory
of 1 he r.jll of Iti^^dds is (bat all are erd it led to its firotect ions, vv(( believe that this
includes Cortnuunists. I'.ut, these attacks ai'e not directed only at (lonununists.
They are dii-ected at every American who refuses to accept the plMlosoi)liy and
th(! iM-emises of (Ik; reactionaries, tlie t»i«ots, and tli(,' batejnon;;ers. In tlie <ase
of the bills before you, the attack is not on C'oinmunists in tlie labor movement,
'i'he attack is on all lunons and on all union mr-mhers who do not accept the
piiilosopli.\ and the premises of the cor|M)rat ions. Ft, is therefore an attack on
the very existence of the trade unions. "Company unionize yourself," say these
bills to lh<' American lahoi- movement, "or Ix; destroytsd !"
These bills therefore an; aimed at our waKes, hours, and working conditions.
This is illustrated by a comment madct in a lK)ok r<'view last year by .lolni I!.
<)akes, of the New York Times editorial hoard :
"If to avoid heinu' accused of <'omniiuiism, Americans have always to advocate
a policy automatically opposed lo that of the (^onuiiunists, tlion we have lost all
control over our own destiny as well as our own freedom."
In other words, if these bills becomr> law, we will have to advocate h)vver wages
if (Ik; C.onununists achncate biubei- wages. We will luive to advocate .Jim Ci'ow
if the ( "omnuMiists are iiL';iinsl it. If the ('ommunists say "|ieace," we will have?
lo say "wai-." In fact, if the T'ommunists are shown to have; been against tliese
bills, (he fact (bat we were also against tliem will be evidence against us.
This point is illustrafed e\-en more vividly by (he attorney for tlie I'recision
Scientilic (!o., who ap|)eared and ga\e (esdmony before you on th<' first, day of
these iM-arin^s. As evidence against Mine, Mill, he cited the f;i(l that we had
opposed (he attack nuide on us by the Mc(!ar-ian sul)i-omtnitlc(' in 1!>.^2. In other
vv(U'ds, (he vevy fad that you defend yourself against the charge of comnuirdsm
Is proof (hat you are Communist. How crazy can you get? How desperaleV In
how many pieces can you (ear the 15111 of Rights, the elem<'ntiir-y I'ules of logic,
and I he saci'cd jirinciples of Anglo Saxon law, go\ernment and democr.-icyV
Since these bills a !•(■ a logical developnientof section !) (h) of I hi' Taft-Hartley
Act, we woidd like to (urn to (hat jtrovision.
Since some ra( ionalizat ion is always pro\ided for each of these encroaclimeiits
on our liberties, (he rat iomilization in (he case of section !) (Ii) is (hat so-called
political strikes have taken |il;ice and that the only way to lucvcnt them is (o
forc<' members of the (lommunist r.-ii'ty out of trade-uninn Ic-idcrshi)). Cased
on this completely unfounded premise that political strikes are a menace to
the <'ount I'y, this provision for the lii'st time in American history has dictiited
In milliiuis of Americans, ;is if they wei'e beiiiglited and disloyal wards of Con-
gress, whom tlie.N' ma.\' select as (he leaders of the iiniiuis tlie.\' ha\c xolunlarily
Joined.
To us in Mine, Mill, two things are too clear for argument. The (irst is (hat
j)olitical strikes have m;ver been a serious i*rohlem in this country, l)ut if (hey
sliould be, (hen they should be <lealt with on (heir merits and not in a way that
throws out with the bath (he most pr(>cious child of our democracy, free clioice
by freemen. The si'cond is that we in Mine, Mill, do not engage in jioliticiii
strikes, lh;it we strike only ;is a las( resor(, (hat only our mend»ei'sbip can call
SUBVERBIVK INFLUKNCE IX C'KJriAIN LAI',0)t OlfGANIZATIONH 413
Ktrikcs, Jiiid tliiil ;iri.yr)n<! wlio Ihinks tli;il any Ktrik*- of ohvh Juih '•oiK'<Tri<-r| afiy-
ihiiiK fjut, wjiK'-H, flours, and working? fruirljlion.s, in <;ilJi<!r a fool or a d«'niat?o(^.
Until recent ycurH, Jt waH ono of our proudcjHf. boaHt.H uh AnKtrlcanH that, wo
Ju(l«<;d n/en by what, they (Jo, not hy what thuy ar<; or ar«; HUpfioH*;'! to be. W«;
.iij(J;4<;(J a iiiun on bis '■ojnfK't<*n'!y and af''oirif)lislii/i''ntH. VV<; didn't aHk liirn lo
(i<;cAi)V('. bis politics any nioro than wo dcinaddcd ho doflar<; his rt-W'tijoii. A
man's roli}iion, if bo wantod it that way, was botwocn bini and bis <iod. 'Ibis 1h
what tbo c«/iiHtitiJtional pi'rjtootion of i'oli((ious frocdoni /ncatis. So a man's
j)(;liti':H, If bo wantod it that way, was botwoon hlni and I Ik- balb/t l^ox. 'Ibis
is what til*: sof-rot ballot /noans.
And oortainly a man's tbout^bts woro botwoon liim and his oonsolonoo. Tbis
is what tbo best anionrlmont riK-ans.
'J'bis is not mor(;ly a rjii<fStion of tbo oivil lihorLios of tbo ollioors and tlio m(;mborH
of Alino, Mill, ini[)ortant as tbat of oourso is. Hootion i) (b; Involvos <;vori rnon;
than tbat. Sootion U (]i) Is fisirt of tbo haslo phlJf)Hor>liy of Taft Hart toy. || \h
part of tho /»hilo.sophy vvliioh rostriots our intornal fnnotionirif? and our froodom
of oollootivo bar;.'ainin;.'. Jt is Ihorcforo oo/iHistf;nt that a statnto whioh plaooH
unnooossary rostriotions on unio/j sofrurity, on tho obookolf and on tb<; linion
and closod shops, Hbould also rostriot tho froodom of tb«! motnborsblp to choona
thoir own loadors. Jt is tJioroforo oonsistont tbat a statiito wblob plaoos KorloiJH
rostriotions on [Kffjsions and wolfaro funds should also rostriot tho froodom of tbo
m'-njhorHbip to obooso- thoir own |oad<TH.
Jfi otb<;r words, tho non CJonifnunist affidavit provision d'jos not stand by itnolf,
it is not a sido issuo, it \h not. intrffidod to protoot tho rank and fllo, it Ik an
into^ral i)art of tbo dosijcn of Taft Jfartloy to woakon anrl dostroy tbo Amorloan
labor rnovof front.
Any doubt as to tho real intord. of Hor-tion U ( \i ) has now In-on r<-mov<'«| by
tho hills b'-forf; this Huh'.'^mmittoo. 'Iboso hills r-arry tho philo.'^ophy of U Hi;
to tbo noxt logioal staj/os. VVbllo '.) (h) tolls union mombors whom tboy jnay or
niay not oloot, tboso bills now sook to toll thorn what to think and what not to
think.
Of oourso, this intontion will J)0 dis'laim<'<l. i'lit to us it is [dain, <'>nfo you
say, as do tbo iJutlor and Gohlwator hilln, that a union may lio [>ut oiit of busl-
;j<- :-: fi,r advfK.-atlng or supportinff oortain jM^sitlonH, you aro tolling uh what to
think.
What do Huoh billH revoaJ about sootiori U (h) itsolf? Isn't It truo that tbo
affidavit provision is not roally oonoornod with a rolatlv<f handful of ifidividuals
who hapfH-n !'» br? union offl'-frrs? Isn't it truo ffiat booauso tbo rank and fllo
iindorstands tbis, and booauso tboy know It is tho v<Ty llfo of thoir unions and
thoir wiiiif-H, hours, atid working oonditiouH whioh aro at stako, that thoy havo
fou;.'ht to proKOrvo fhoir unions dosplto sootion 0 tfh;? And isn't it truo that
booauso this is so, tho bills boforo tho srji»oomm!ltoo now sook to f»roooo<| to tho
noxt stajro — tbo 'liotation of union thinkint?, jioli'-ioH, and protrrajfi. lOlso, say
tbo fJiitlor and fioblwator bills, wo'll (lut tho union out of buxinoMH. KJho, MayH
tbo MoCarran bill, you'll lost; your Job.
As far as tho first amondmont \h oonoornod, tho boll tolls not only for MIno,
Mill, but for tbo ontiro labor rnovomont; not ordy for tbo lalior (novomord, but
for ail tbo Aniorioan iJ<;oplo. Jt tolls not only for <^;omnMinistH, but for lu-tno-
'•ratM liko ''J'ruman and for Jlopuldioans liko Warron. No ono is safo from what
Walt'T Lippi/iiin has just oallod "tho dosoont to lawJossnoss." In this ultium-
I»horo, tho oruolfioation of a OonoraJ Zwiokor boooniOM only an Inoidont in fho
waUjT of indooonoy. No wondor fhat a promlnont Now York Kopubli'an has just
Joft bis party In protost against this "tboory (if opprossion and supprossion, not
of '^■ommunism but of Amorloan doniorrraoy" (S<;w York World-Tolojrrani, Fohru-
ary 25, lO.'l, p. 1;,
Wo submit that tho bills l»oforo this suboommlttoo aro basod on tbo "fhoory of
opTjroHsion and suppror^sion, not of (^ommunism but of Amorloan domoorar-y," find
wo aro or<pOH«;d to thorn.
/// Our (liHTnitfi vrith the Pn'Mniftn HrA'mtifU; fjo.
'i'bo tf!«timony of roprosontativos of tbis company b<-foro your suhoommlttoo Ih
a iti-rfa-X oxampio of tbo mannor in whioh anti-<^>>mmuniHt h,ysforIa Ik oxploitod
for Hinisttrr motivoH,
If ovor tho'ro wax a oas<f of hidin}? boiiinr] tho fla{?, thiH Is it. Wo oannot thor<!-
foro let thiH rxroasion pass withoiit protr:stiri« against tho faof that fliis suh-
oornrnittoo gave the company a forum fro/n uhlch to attack it;< emjiloyooH ami
414 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
their union, tbe International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers.
What are the simple facts of this dispute?
Our local 758 was certified as the collective-bargaining representative for the
250 employees of the company in 1945. In successive agreements, we won many
gains in wages, insurance benefits, vacations and job security.
Our last agreement with the company, in February 1951, included a clause per-
mitting wages to be reopened after 1 year. When we sought to reopen the agree-
ment in February 1952, the company refused to meet with us. This was a naked
and brazen violation of the agreement. But we still did not strike and instead
took the issue to arbitration. In July 1952 tlie arbitrator ruled in our favor.
Did the company accept the award and bargain with us in good faith? It
did not. We met with the company for more than 20 times from August to
November 1952, but the company did not make a single offer on any of our
proposals.
Finally, on November 12, 1952, the company came up with its program. No
wage increase. Elimination of the union shop and checkoff. No job security,
with the right of the company to discharge employees at will. Since this program
was a direct and basic attack on local 758, we had no alternative except to exer-
cise our right to terminate the contract. Although we sought to continue negoti-
ations, the company refused. Still we did not strike.
The next thing that liappened was that an A. P. of L. union sought representa-
tion of the employees, but in an NLRP> election in March 1953, local 758 won by
138 to 66 and was again certified by the Board.
Did the comi)any then agree to bargain? It did not, despite our patient and
persistent efforts. In view of the overwhelming evidence that the company was
determined to destroy our local union, we had no alternative except to take a
strike vote. The membership voted for the strike, and the strike date was set
for July 23, 1953.
Since we do not approve of strikes unless they are absolutely necessary, we
made a final desperate effort to negotiate by writing the company as follows on
July 16:
[Registered mail]
July 16, 1953.
C. A. Warner,
President, Precision Scientific Co.,
Chicago, III.
Dear Sir : On April 10, 1953, this union was certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as bargaining representative of employees of Precision Scientific
Co.
On April 21, 1953, we wrote you requesting union recognition and a meeting to
negotiate a contract. On April 21, you wrote us refusing nur request.
C!harges against your company for refusing to bargain are now before the
NLRB.
We hereby inform you that, in support of our certification and to obtain the
union recognition to which we are lawfully entitled, a strike at Precision has
been authorized.
In order to make a final effort at peaceful settlement of this matter, we hereby
again request recognition of this union and are prepared to meet with you on
Tuesday or Wednesday, July 21 or 22, 1953, to negotiate a contract.
Should you continue to decline to recognize the union as required by law, we
have no alternative but to take necessary action to obtain union recognition and
collective bargaining.
Very truly yours,
James Pinta,
Business Manager, Local 758, Mine, Mill.
The company ignored this temperate appeal, so we had no recourse but to strike
on .July 23.
If ever a strike was justified it was this one, and we are sure that the members
of this subcommittee will agree with us. We had spent a year and a half pur-
suing our rights imder our agreement with the company and under the National
Labor Relations Act. We had won the arbitrator's award. We had won another
Labor P.oard election. We had been patient and restrained under the company's
provocations, its violation of its agreement, its violation of the law of the land,
its unconcealed piu-pose to destroy local 758 in the plant and to debase the wages
and working conditions of its employees.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 415
A stage such as this, with a company like this writing the script, with the
political atmosphere what it is, the theme of the last act of the play is inevitable.
The villain, gentlemen, is — communism.
The company found its handle in section 9 (h). When local 758 filed a charge
with the Labor Board alleging the company's refusal to bargain, did the com-
pany deny the charge? No, it did not, because it could not. Instead, the com-
pany claimed that local 758 and the lUMMSW were not "labor organizations" as
defined in the law because they are communistic and therefore could not be in
compliance with section 9 (h) despite the filing of the required affidavits.
Despite the Labor Board's settled and definite policy that this may not be madfr
an issue in an unfair labor practice case, the company attempted to turn the
hearing before the trial examiner into a smear of Mine, Mill, and its officers.
In any event, the trial examiner made his report in November 1953 finding,
against the company and recommending that the Board issue a cease-and-desist
order requiring the company to bargain with local 758 in good faith. The matter
is now pending before the Board itself.
What has happened to our strike? Every worker in the plant went out.
For 10 weeks, the strike was a model of orderliness, without a single picket-line
incident or disturbance.
Despite this, a lower State court issued an injunction against the strike based
on the same argument the company had used before the Labor Board. We are
appealing this outrageous and illegal injunction. But in the meantime, we
have had to obey it and instruct the workers to go back to work.
Thus far, we have to admit, the company is on top. It has evaded its duty to
bargain for 2 whole years. Our members in the plant have no protection by local
758 or any other union. There is no job security, no seniority, no grievance pro-
cedure, nothing. In the meantime, our members in other plants in Chicago
have won substantial wage increases and other benefits.
We are here first to tell you the facts and the truth. If this subcommittee
is interested in making a contribution to decent labor relations, it should help
us secure the rights which belong to us under the law. If this subcommittee
is interested in preserving the rights guaranteed by Federal law, it will look
into the illegal action of the Illinois court. If this subcommittee believes that the
members of the Labor Board should live up to tlieir oath of office, it will inquire
why it is that the Board has sat on our case for 3 months when it has decided
the same issue over and over again in other cases and its policy has been upheld
in the courts.
These are some of the things this subcommittee should do. But above all,
this subcommittee should not approve the bills before it. Taft-Hartley, and
particularly its section 9 (h), is bad enough. It has made it possible for an
employer like Precision to trample on its agreement, to violate the law, to mis-
use a State court, to keep a imion out of its plant, to hold wages down, and
to treat its workers with cynical contempt and with brutal disregard for ele-
mentary human rights. Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Our
dispute with Precision proves that it is the last refuge of union-busting, profit-
hungry employers.
Yes, Taft-Hartley is bad enough, but we are still confident that sooner or
later Precision will have to enter into an honorable agreement with us. But if
the bills before the subcommittee become law. Precision and every other employer
with the same philosophy will have a wide open avenue to the destruction of
unionism and of decent wages, hours, and working conditions.
IV. Instead of more repressive legislation, Congress should act, and act now,
ahout the serious economic problems of our m,embers
In the foregoing sections of this statement, we have pointed out that legisla-
tion like section 9 (h) of Taft-Hartley and proposed legislation like the bills
before you, are actually intended to debase the wages and the economic security
of American workers.
This would be bad enough if the economy were still booming and if unemploy-
ment were not mounting. But with the economic situation facing our members
being what it is, we say that Congress and the administration should be doing
something constructive about it instead of considering proposals which would
make it worse.
It happens that economic conditions in our industry did not begin to worsen
only last week or last month or 3 or 6 months ago, as in other major industries.
We have had a crisis in the nonferrous metals industry for 2 years.
416 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
And, gentlemen, the crisis is not getting better. It is getting worse. Only in
the last 2 weks, 3 of the largest producers in the copper industry have cur-
tailed operations very substantially. This means that additional thousands of
our members have been added to those already unemployed or on shorter work-
weeks. The full-blown depression in the lead-zinc industry is hitting copper.
As part of this union's continuing effort to get some action out of the Gov-
ernment, an effort thus far unsuccessful, we have just pulilished the first of a
sei-ies of supplements to our newspaper, The Union. We call this series. The
Fight for Job Security. We have sent copies of tins first supplement to every
Senator and Congressman, as well as to hundreds of other Americans in
public life and to the press. Since this supplement sets forth the facts and
Mine-Mill's program for doing something about it, we are taking the liberty of
quoting from it. The supplement begins with this summary :
"There's a full-blown economic crisis in the nonferrous metals industry, right
now — today.
"It's not just a 'dip' or a 'recession' or a 'rolling readjustment.'
"It's a depression. Many areas are suffering just as seriously as in the dark-
est days of the grim thirties, the days of the great depression.
"The metals crisis is like a swelling cyclone. It has created a lot of havoc
already. It's still spreading and growing in fury. It has devastated whole
sections of lead and zinc mining. It has badly crippled zinc smelting. It has
hit brass fabrication. Now it appears headed for all branches of copper pro-
duction. There are very few storm cellars to duck into.
"The metals depression can be whipped.
"In this series, we will tell how the crisis came aliout, why it happened, and
what we in Mine-Mill believe must be done to end it."
The supplement then goes on to give the key facts of the depression in non-
ferrous metals :
"Depression is an ugly word.
"Nobody should use it and say : 'It's here, right now,' unless he can prove it —
with facts.
"There are many ugly facts which prove depression is here for the nonferrous
metals industry. Let's look at the key facts.
"Top economists have been carrying on a talky debate for months. They've
argued about whether the Nation's employment in 19.54 will drop by 5 percent
or by 10 percent. There's no such debate in lead and zinc mining. There,
employment has already fallen by nearly 40 percent from the peak of last year.
"These same economists say total national i>roduction will also drop by 5 or
10 percent — maybe. Zinc mine production is already down .''.4 percent. Lead
mine production has dropped 20 percent and is still plummeting.
"This depression has been in the making for almost 2 years. Lead and zinc
were the first to feel its impact. Since April 19.52, zinc prices have fallen 51
percent. Lead prices thudded downward .32 percent.
"All this happened while the United States economy as a whole was enjoy-
ing the greatest boom in history !
"Until recently nobody could even argue that the crisis was caused by any
lack of demand. United States industries last year consumed as nuich lead
and zinc as ever. In fact, they used a bit more than in 1952 and 1951.
"But the price levels were shattered when the market was swamped by a
flood of lead and zinc imports. Then, last year, imports of copper climbed to
record levels. Today copper coming from abroad threatens to engulf this
market, too.
"Now a new and dangerous element has shown up. The demand for non-
ferrous metals in the United States has started to shrink. Brass workers are
lieing laid off. Stocks of unsold metals are mounting. Unfilled orders are on
the downslide. A general economic decline is spreading through all basic
industries.
"Metals markets are now being undermined both by growing supplies and by
shrinking demand.
"The impact of lower demand has already hit the copper market. Last year,
for the first time since 1949, copper supplies on hand were higher than the
amount being used by United States industry. Copper consumption in De-
cembei- was down 30 percent — nearly one-third — below the same month of 1952.
"Net imports of copper in 1953 zoomed 31 percent over 1952; 64 percent over
1951. Imports jumped that much even though Chile, our major foreign source
of copper, made no shipments for more than 5 months in 1953. Now Chile has
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 417
again started copper shipments to the United States, at the rate of 30,000
tons a month. This is almost sure to mean a drop in copper prices.
"So copper seems to be headed down the steep slope along which lead and
zinc have been sliding for many months."'
Note that a few weeks ago, when the supplement was written, we said that
"copper seems to be headed down. * * *" Today, March 4, we have to say
that "copper is headed down * * *" for it is quite clear that the cuts made in
copper during the last weeks will go deeper and deeper.
As we have said. Mine, Mill's program is set forth in our supplement. Here
it is :
"Mine-Mill proposes to meet the nonferrous metals crisis through constructive
action aimed at two main objectives :
"1. Save our mines and conserve our limited and valuable resources, which
can never be replaced.
"2. Expand markets for nonferrous metals both at home and abroad.
"We stand ready to work with any other union or group in the industry
willing to join in action for more jobs, better wages and security for nonferrous
workers.
"Our specific proposals call for :
SAVE OUR MINES
"1. Pass a subsidy bill like the Murray-Metcalfe premium price bill (S. 1539,
H. R. 6651) to aid small and marginal mines. We have some slight amend-
ments to propose, but we agree with the bill's basic princii^les.
BUILD MAEKETS
"Build the Home Market
"2. Raise wages, the biggest prop to United States purchasing power. Enact
a $1.25 minimum hourly wage and a Fair Employment Practices Act. Defeat
such measures as the Butler-Miller bill (S. 1606, H. R. 4548) and the Goldwater-
Rhodes bill (S. 12.54, H. R. 3998). These bills, behind a phony front of anti-
communism, are aimed at the crippling of all labor unions.
"3. Provide Federal funds for huge public works program to insure building
of needed homes, schools, hospitals, highways, farm electrification, and tele-
phones, and river valley authorities.
"4. Raise farm income through full parity payments to farmers. Federal farm
subsidies for foods, and Government credit at low rates to working farmers.
Reduce farm-to-market spreads.
"5. Provide more adequate Federal standards for unemployment comjoensa-
tion. Raise minimum benefits to at least 65 percent of weekly earnings eliminate
waiting periods and extend benefits over a 2-year period.
"6. Liberalize the Federal Social Security Act by boosting monthly pensions
to a maximum of $200 and bv providing for disability insurance — as spelled out
in the Lehman-Dingell bill (S. 2260, H. R. 6034).
"7. Lower taxes for low income groups by raising personal exemptions from
$600 to $1,000 for each taxpayer and dependent. Close existing tax loopholes
for corporations and wealthy and defeat all sales and increased excise taxes.
Build Foreign Markets
"8. Increase foreign consumption by lowering or modifying barriers which now
block trade between the Eastern and Western halves of the world.
"9. Promote industrial development of underdeveloped countries without
political or economic interference."
Gentlemen, isn't this program worth your consideration and that of Congress
and the administration as a whole? Shouldn't we be spending our time in con-
sideration of this program or, if not this program, some other constructive
proposals to help our members, our employers, and the American people and
American business as a whole?
We submit that such is your duty, not ours alone. And we further submit
that if you not only neglect this duty but go on instead to enact legislation like
S. 1606, S. 1254, and S. 23, the American people will, sooner or later, know where
to place the responsibility.
Mr. Witt. Before Mr. O'Brien gets started, may I say a few words ?
I am not sure the record shows my name.
418 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL O'BRIEN, CHICAGO, ILL.; AND NATHAN
WITT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, NEW YORK, N. Y., ON BEHALF OF THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL, AND SMELTER
WORKERS
Mr. Arens. Will you both identify yourselves?
Mr. Witt. Nathan Witt, W-i-t-t, 9 East 40th Street, New York. I
am a member of the bar of the State of New York and I appear here as
general counsel for the International Union of Mine, Mill, and
Smelter Workers, for its local 758, in Chicago, and for Brother
O'Brien here.
In view of the fact that I was here while Mr. Countryman testified,
and I heard the questions, I think I can save a little time by just
taking a couple of minutes to sharpen up one or two issues, as far as
we see them in the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, and as we set
forth m our statement, which is now part of the record. I think all I
need do is just make two points, one point which I think Mr. Country-
man made pretty well, but which I think needs more emphasis.
As a lawyer I was brought up in the Anglo-Saxon traditions of our
law, and in the traditions of our Constitution and the Bill of Eights,
and I was taught that the most elementary principle of our system of
law is that you define crimes, and you define rights and duties, and then
you give men a trial when they are charged.
The fundamental objection to this kind of legislation which Mr.
Countryman stated in his own way, and I would like to restate from
my point of view is that this legislation and similar legislation has
departed from that elementary concept of Anglo-Saxon law, and I
agree with Mr. Arens that we are in a bad way if we continue to pass
this kind of legislation.
Mr. Arexs. I think I am being misquoted. I want the record to be
clear.
Senator Butler. I think his statement was, Mr. Witt, that if we
could not find some legislation to fight this situation that we were in a
bad way,
Mr. Witt. I was about to say that I agree with him that we are in a
bad way, but we are in a bad way because we have passed legislation
like this, and we meet here today because the Senate of the United
States is concerned with passing additional legislation along these
lines.
So, Mr. Arens and I agree that we are in a bad way.
Mr. Arens. I not only take issue with tlie quotation, but I take issue
as to who it is that is in a bad way. It is the Communist Party that is
in a bad way.
Mr. Witt. I think our democracy is in a bad way and I think our
Constitution and system of law is in a bad way.
What did this discussion betAveen Mr. Countryman and you,
Senator, and Mr. Arens, develop ? It developed that you are concerned
witli passing legislation because you have come to the conclusion that
the criminal law Mdiich we have, which we all understand, is inadequate
to deal with the problems which you see. We have laws against espion-
age; we have laws against sabotage. We have the Foreign Agents
Registration Act.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 419
I agree, as I think all American lawyers would agree, that these are
proper laws, and I agi'ee as a lawyer and as an American that if crimes
are being committed wliich are not covered by those laws, and we need
additional legislation to get at those crimes, then by all means, let us
pass such additional legislation.
Mr. Arens. Would you concur in legislation making it a crime
to be a Communist?
Mr. Witt. No, I would not — and that is what this legislation does,
even though it doesn't put it in that way.
I say that under our system, our job is, and particularly when
you enter the area of the Bill of Rights, as you do with this legisla-
tion, our job is to define a specific crime and provide sanctions and
provide that our time-honored procedures are applicable.
Mr. Arens. Why shouldn't we just make it a crime to be a Com-
munist, and be done with it? That would be a specific crime.
Mr. Witt. Mr. Arens, you can't do that, as Mr. Comitryman tried
to explain to you, because the Constitution forbids it.
Mr. Arens. Forbids making it a crime to be part of a conspiracy?
Mr. WiiT. You have changed it, Mr. Arens.
Mr. Arens. Isn't the Communist Party a conspiracy?
Mr. Witt. What you have just done is illustrate what you have.
May I answer, Mr. Arens, because this is critical ?
Mr. Arens asked me first whether you can make it a crime to be a
Communist. When I started to answer that question, before I am
done, Mr. Arens changes the question and asks me whether we can
make it a crime to be a member of a conspiracy.
Mr. Arens. That just did not happen. I asked you whether or
not you would favor legislation making it a crime to be a Communist,
and you said "No."
The second question was: "Isn't the Communist Party a conspir-
acy?" And that is when you went off on this tirade.
Mr. Witt. I have not been on a tirade.
Mr. Arens. Do you think the Communist Party is a conspiracy?
Mr. Witt. I haven't been on a tirade.
Mr. Arens. Is the Communist Party a conspiracy?
Mr. Witt. Let me answer, if I may, without engaging in a tirade.
If the Communist Party is a conspiracy, we have the Smith Act on
the books already. If we think the Smith Act is inadequate to deal
with that conspiracy, or any other conspiracy, then we should pass
legislation to get at the conspiracy in the way that our system of law
has gotten at conspiracies for the last 400 or 500 years.
Mr. Arens. Can you tell us how you would get rid of the Com-
munists ?
Mr. Witt. Well, I would get rid of the Communists, or anybody
else who is or may be a criminal, by passing criminal legislation, if
we don't have legislation which is adequate, and prove that they have
engaged in crimes.
Mr. Arens. Crime is what is set forth in a statute, is it not?
Mr. Witt. Right — but it has to be a crime.
Mr. Arens. If we said it is a crime to be a knowing, active member
of the Communist Party, that would make it a crime ?
Mr. Witt. Right, but I don't think we could pass that kind of
legislation. If I read the Dennis opinion, which passed on the con-
420 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
stitutionality of the Smith Act, Mr. Arens, I don't thiiilv the ,vay you
have described it would make that a crime.
Senator Butler. His activities would have to pose a present danger,
in your opinion ?
Mr. Witt. No. 1, it would have to be a criminal conspiracy which
the majority of the Supreme Court found existed, in the Dennis case,
No. 1 ; and, No. 2, as Mr. Countryman reminded you, you would have
to show criminal proof and with all the safeguards of our criminal
law, that there was clear and present danger.
Mr. Arens. How are you going to tell us to get rid of the Com-
munists? You do not want to have this legislation, and you do not
want to make it a crime to be a Communist. How are we going to
get rid of the Communists?
Mr. Witt. Under our system, I don't think you can pass legislation
to get rid of the Communists, period, in the same wsjy that you can't
pass legislation to get rid of Senator McCarth}' or Senator Butler.
Senator Butler. Do not legislate on that.
Mr. Witt. Of course, I am not getting personal.
Senator Butler. I take your remark to be facetious.
Mr. Witt. That is right.
As Mr. Countryman pointed out, that is the definition of the demo-
cratic system. Those are the safeguards contained in the Bill of
Eights, and particularly in the first amendment, and it is our position,
and particularly when we come to labor unions, that if Americans
want to elect Communists to office in a labor union, if they want to
elect the Senator from the State of Maryland, under our constitution,
they have a right to do that.
Mr. Arens. But the Conununists do not tell them that they are
Communists.
Mr. Witt. You fellows down here are busily engaged in making
the point that the Communists don't follow the American system, but,
when it is suggested to you that under the American system they have
the right to run for office, they have the right to engage in business,
they have the right to be officers of labor unions, you want to change
the American system.
Mr. Arens. No, we do not want to change the American system,
Mr. Witt ; now, as to the Communists who run for office in these labor
organizations, and who are sometimes elected, do they identify them-
selves to the rank and file as Communists?
Mr. Witt. Well, I will say first, Mr. Arens, as you know, we have
section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act on the books.
Mr. Arens. Just answer that question. Can't you answer that:
Whether they do or not, as a matter of practice?
Mr. Witt. Just a minute, Mv. Arens. I am answering it. I may
not be giving the answer you want given.
Mr. Arens. I want the answer as to whether they do or do not.
Mr. Witt. I am giving the answer.
Mr. Arens. Go ahead.
Mr. Witt. In the first place, as you know, under section 9 (h) of
the Taft-Hartley Act, officers of labor unions have to file non-Com-
munist affidavits.
Mr. Arens. And you know, of course, that Communists do not mind
lying?
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 421
Mr, Witt. No. 2, ^Yhether they lie or whether they don't lie, what
I have been trying to say, and I think, as Mr. Countryman tried to
say, under our system it is up to Brother O'Brien here, and the other
rank and file members of local 758 and local 1 and local 100 and local
200. They are intelligent people and American citizens, and they
can take care of themselves without any help from you, Mr. Arens,
or from the Senate of the United States, when it comes to that ques-
tion, and I think they have been doing fairly well.
Mr. Arens. Does Brother O'Brien, and do the members have access
to the security memoranda of this Government, which show who are
the Communists in various organizations?
Mr. Witt. If Brother O'Brien is interested in and wants access to
it, he knows how to go about getting it, if he wishes, and it is available
to him. If Brother O'Brien wants material on any question that con-
cerns him, as to who the officers of his union are, what their history
is, if Brother O'Brien asks me to answer questions about your history,
your relation to this committee, I can answer those questions. So
iDrother O'Brien is well able, I think, to take care of himself, and I
don't think he needs your help, especially if your help goes along the
lines of saying, "I forbid you to make up your own mind about your
officers and your union policy."
Mr. Arens. Do you think that the labor organizations, or the mem-
bers of the labor organizations can, on the basis of what Communists
might tell them, determine who are the Communists ?
Mr. Witt. That is up to Brother O'Brien. If he is in difficulty, he
knows what to do.
Mr. Arens. Do you think this communism in labor organizations is
just between the members and the leadership, or do you think there is
an overriding public interest, where the public will say, "We will not
have Communists and Communist agents in labor organizations,
especially in those labor organizations which are working on defense
material" ?
Mr. Witt. Mr. Arens, if I had the power, and we didn't have the
Constitution, I would like a system under which I would be able to
say to members of unions under the present conditions that "You are
forbidden to elect to office people like Senator McCarthy, or people
who agTee with Senator McCarthy" but I don't have the power.
Mr. Arens. How about members of the Communist conspiracy!
Would you preclude that ?
Mr. Witt. Again, I tell you, Mr. Arens, if they have committed a
crime, whether they are Communists or whether it is a conspiracy, or
if they have engaged in espionage or sabotage or whether you put it
the way General Electric puts it, in the advertisement today, I say if
they are violating the law, you prosecute, according to our time-
honored system.
Mr. Arens. If they are just Communists ?
Mr. Witt. We can't do it, whether they are Jews, Fascists, or Demo-
crats or Eepublicans or Single-Taxers.
Senator Butler. Don't you think there is any difference between
those classifications ?
Mr. Witt. Certainly there is a difference between j^ou and Senator
Murray of Montana, Senator Butler. I say we cannot enact legis-
lation forbidding you to express the kind of views you expressed on
the Senate floor last year, with which I disagree.
422 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. So, do you think a Communist is only a person with
certain political views ? Is that correct ?
]\Ir. Witt. Whatever he is, he is either a man with political views,
or he is a criminal or not a criminal, Mr. Arens. I say, as far as his
political views are concerned, he has as much right as you and Senator
Butler to believe what he believes. I say, as far as his crimes are con-
cerned, he has as much right not to violate the criminal laws, as you
have.
Just the other day a Congressman was convicted of violating a law.
We are not going to pass general legislation to take care of that
problem. There is a law on the statutes.
Mr. Arens. But you do not want a law making it a crime to be a
knowing, active, conscious member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Witt. You can't do that without subverting our system of
government, Mr. Arens. That is what you are seeking to do in this
legislation.
Incidentally, I do not agree with Mr. Countryman that the motives
of the people pushing this legislation are sincere. I don't believe that.
Mr. Arens. You think that we are out to bust unions, and witch-
hunt, engaged in redbaiting hysteria, all that?
INIr. Witt. All that, and a lot more, and there is plenty of "more."
Mr. Arens. In other words, you question the motives of the com-
mittee ?
Mr. Witt. Don't misunderstand me, Mr. Arens. I am not saying
you or Senator Butler are dishonest. I say that you are not after
Mr. Arens. Not after Communists. We are after labor unions?
Mr. Witt. You are after Communists. I think you have made that
record clear enough. But you are not after acts which endanger our
system of government. I don't think Senator Butler was after that
when he made this speech in the Senate last year.
Senator Butler. What in that speech leads you to that conclusion ?
Mr. Witt. Well, I have a quotation here, and I think it is accurate,
Senator Butler. That is the speech in which you referred to so-called
crypto-Socialists. Do you remember?
Senator Butler. Yes.
Mr. Witt. And you went on to say
Senator Butler. Wait a minute. You are getting into an entirely
different field now. That is a speech not for legislation. That is a
speech expressing my personal view on what is happening since the
change of administration. It has nothing whatever to do with this
legislation, nothing whatever to do with any legislation.
I do not criticise any man for being a crypto-Socialist, if he wants
to be one. I am telling you what the right of a man being a crypto-
Socialist is. Have I not that right ?
Mr. Witt. Certainly. I have been trying to say you have that right,
and I have the right to disagree with you.
Senator Butler. What connection has that with what we are talk-
ing about ?
Mr. Witt. My point is that in this speech I think you made clear
what the philosophy of your bill 1G06 is.
Senator Butler. That had nothing whatever to do with that bill.
I did not even have the bill in contemplation when I made the speech.
Do you not agree that there are certain Government holdovers under
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 423
the present administration who would like to defeat and thwart the
administration in ^leaning up the mess they found when they got to
Washington?
Mr. Witt. Senator, if you will excuse me, I think that is ridiculous.
Senator Butler. You do not think that some of the heads of the
departments downtown consciously do things the way they would
rather do them, instead of as the law provides they be done?
Mr. Witt. Certainly, to an extent.
Senator Butler. You do not know that that happens, Mr. Witt ?
Mr. Witt. Let me indicate the extent to which I think it does
happen.
Senator Butler, I came here in the Government in 1933. We had a
lot of Republican holdovers at that time.
Senator Butler. If you did, they did not stay in office long. You
may have had them on the floor where you could not get rid of them,
but they did not stay in the executive branch very long.
Mr. Witt. They stayed in the executive branch as long as they ful-
filled their responsibility and lived up to their oath of office.
When we found Republicans who didn't agree with the social legis-
lation passed by the Roosevelt administration, then the administration
tried to get rid of them, and I think that is the job of the Republicans.
Senator Butler. We have exactly that same situation, and that is
exactly wliat that speech was aimed at, but we are not getting rid of
them and that speech was a little signal to the boys downtown, "Maybe
you ought to start to get rid of those people if you want to have a suc-
cessful administration."
Don't you think the people of this country are entitled to have a
change in Government now and then? Do you think you can have a
change if you have the same old people doing the same old thing all
the time?
Mr. Witt. I agree with you. I have been trying to say, if they want
to change from this administration which is creating a gosh awful
mess, I think they are entitled to.
Senator Butler. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to that,
but there are a lot of people who do not agree with you on that.
Mr. Witt. I know that, but more and more people will.
But, getting to this legislation, I was trying to say that it is under-
standable to me why it is that the same person who made this speech
on the Senate floor last year, whatever you were doing it for at that
time, it is understandable to me why a person with those notions,
would draft or have drafted for him S. 1606.
Those views don't get at criminals, don't get at people trying to
overthrow the Government by force and violence.
Senator Butler. Let us be fair about this situation, Mr. Witt. At
the time that bill was introduced, did the Senator from Maryland not
make a speech on the floor ?
Mr. Witt. I am sorry. I missed that.
Senator Butler. You have been so careful to look up my speeches.
Why not look up that speech, wherein I said that that may not be the
answer to the problem. This bill was introduced for the purpose of
having hearings to determine whether this was the proper method.
Have you ever heard me say that that is the only way of doing this?
Have you ever heard me say, "I am going to fight for the passage of this
bill, no matter who likes it" ?
424 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
My course has been the opposite. We have asked that all this legis-
lation be put here. We have asked people of all shades of opinion, to
come before us and, until some bill is reported out of this committee, I
think you would do well to see what we do.
Mr, Arens. We have even had Communists testify. We welcome
all to testify.
Senator Butler. I think it would be well for you to hold your com-
ment until you see the type of legislation reported out. Then, if you
want to take me apart, that is your privilege.
Mr. Witt. I am not waiting until then. That is why we are here
today. We are afraid that you will report this out, and we want to
convince you.
By this legislation you will be subverting the Bill of Rights.
Senator Butler. Why do you think I had you down here? Do
you think I had you down here just to talk about baseball?
Mr. Witt. You didn't invite us. We invited ourselves. In fact, we
think it is our responsibility to come in, because we want to protect
or union and we want to protect our system of government.
Mr. Arens. Are you going to tell us pretty soon how we are going
to drive the Communists out of Mine Mill? You know, of course,
that the Internal Security Subcommittee had a number of witnesses
out in Salt Lake City who testified to identify the leadership of the
Mine Mill as Communists. Are you going to tell us how we are going
to get the job done in the national interest, to drive the Communists
out of labor unions?
Mr. Witt. I have given you one answer, but, since you are not con-
vinced, let me try to answer you to solve this problem, insofar as it is a
problem.
In tlie first place, as I have tried to say, you can't drive Communists
out of labor unions, or out of American life simply in that way any
more than you can drive Republicans or Democrats out of American
life. Under our system of government, you just cannot do that.
There is no use in asking me in 20 different ways how we can do it.
Mr. Arens. You agree that it ought to be done, if possible ?
Mr. Witt. I do not.
Mr. Arens. You do not think it ought to be done ?
Mr. Witt. I would be agreeing that we subvert the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Arens. I am not asking
Mr. Witt. I would be violating my oath as a lawyer.
Mr. Arens. I just wondered if you would agree with us that it
would be in the national interest to drive Communists out of labor
organizations, particularly those labor organizations which are en-
gaged in work which is vital to the defense of this Nation.
Mr. Witt. No. I agree with you that we should punish criminals.
That is our system. It is a wonderful system.
Senator Butler. Mr. Witt, I think we have that point. Let us go on
to another. I really am anxious to get to the floor. We have just had
a quorum call.
Mr. Witt. I am anxious for Brother O'Brien to have some time.
Mr. Arens. Would you identify yourself?
Mr. O'Brien. Daniel O'Brien. I live at 438 North Avers Street,
Chicago, 111.
Senator Butler. I have to go to the floor. Your statement has been
made a part of the record, and I will study it.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 425
Mr. Arens. Mr. O'Brien, would you kindly identify yourself by
office or position in the organization ?
Mr. O'Brien. I am a rank and file member of Local 758, Inter-
national Mine, Mill, and Smelter "Workers.
Mr. Arens. Do you have a statement?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes; I, with the help of the international representa-
tive, and our local union office, and also through the help of Brother
Nate Witt.
Our dispute with the Precision Scientific Co. : The testimony of rep-
resentatives of this company before your subcommittee is a perfect
example of the manner in which anti-Communist hysteria is exploited
for sinister motives.
If ever there was a case of hiding behind the flag, this is it. We
cannot, therefore, let this occasion pass without protesting against the
fact that this subcommittee gave the company a forum from which to
attack its employees and their union, the International Union of Mine,
Mill, and Smelter Workers.
What are the simple facts of this dispute ?
Our local 758 was certified as the collective bargaining representative
for the 250 employees of the company in 1945. In successive agree-
ments we won many gains in wages, insurance benefits, vacations, and
job security.
Our last agreement with the company, in February 1951, included a
clause permitting wages to be reopened after 1 year. Wlien we sought
to reopen the agreement in February 1952, the company refused to
meet with us. This was a naked and brazen violation of the agreement.
But we still did not strike, and, instead, took the issue to arbitration.
In July 1952 the arbitrator ruled in our favor.
Did the company accept the award and bargain with us in good
faith ? It did not. We met with the company for more than 20 times
from August to November 1952, but the company did not make a single
offer on any of our proposals.
By the way, the company representative 2 weeks earlier had called
these proposals Communist proposals. I have a copy of them which
I would like to submit for the record.
Mr. Arexs. IMay I ask you something, please, Mr. O'Brien ?
Do you feel that the fact that the National Labor Relations Board
certified the jMine, Mill as the bargaining agent meant that the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board found that the Mine, Mill was clean
so far as communism is concerned ?
Mr. O'Brien. I feel that as long as we had an election at the plant
in the democratic way, and the members had voted for Mine, Mill, and
Smelter Workers Union, that that should be the union to represent
us.
Mr. Arens. Let me ask you this : You do not want Communist lead-
ership in the Mine and Mill ? Assuming that there would be, would
you want t/iem in leadership of Mine, Mill?
Mr. O'Brien. We vote for the members of our union, for the offi-
cers of our union, both local and international. The members vote
for them by referendum vote.
Mr. Arens. Would they vote for known Communists, people who
are Communists ?
426 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. O'Brien-. We vote for these people on their record on the job
tliat they are doing for the union, for the working i)eople in the union,
the members themselves.
Mr. Arens. Would you vote for people who are Communist agents
or Communists, irrespective of their record, if you knew they were
Communists ?
Mr. O'Brien. I never take into consideration, when I vote for a union
official, anything, whether it be his race, his religion, his creed or his
political belief. The only thing I take into consideration, and I think
the majority of tlie members of our union do, is what type of record
he has as to fighting for the people in the union.
Mr. Arens. I am convinced by looking at you, and from your man-
ner, that you are perfectly sincere. Do you think the Communists
pose a threat to the security of the country I
Mr. O'Briex. That I couldn't answer you except that if they are
committing any crime it is up to the FBI, the same as it would be up to
any law enforcement, to arrest them and try them.
Mr. Arens. Would you be in accord with legislation that would
make it a crime to sign up knowingly, actively, consciously with the
Communist conspiracy in this country ?
Mr. O'BitiEN. I didn't come here to discuss legislation or the matter
directly.
Mr. Arens. I understand. We just want to get your views.
Mr. O'l^RiEN. Before we drift off the subject too far, I came here to
explain a case here.
Mr. Arens. Would you just answer that question for me? I am
not trying to press you. I am tiying to get your views on this issue
of communism, which we think is serious. Will you favor legislation
to mnke it a crime to become a knowing, active member of the Commu-
nist Party ?
Mr. O'Brien. That I coukhi't answer, I am not that well ac-
quainted with legislation or law. I am just a common workingman
from the plant.
Mr. Arens. We are mighty glad to have workingmen here. I think
it would be better for the committee if we had more working people
come up here rather than some of the lawyers and some of the labor
officials, and I do not mean that personally toward anybody. I think
it is fine to have some of the people from the rank and file up here.
ISfr. O'Brien. I will tell you what I would like to do right now. I
would like to continue on my statement here. I think you gave the
company representatives the same courtesy.
Mr. Arens. I hope that I have not been discourteous to you.
Mr. O'Brien. At the end of my statement you can ask me what ques-
tions you want. If I feel I can answer I will answer them for you.
Mr. Arens. You go ahead. I did not mean to make you nervous.
I do not mean to be discourteous to you, and I hope I have not been.
I do not think that I have been.
Mr. O'Brien. I ended by mentioning the proposals. I also men
tioned the fact that Mr. Bader, the vice president of the company, had
testified 2 weeks earlier to the fact that we had submitted improve-
ments which were of Communist nature.
Finally, on November 12, 1052, the company came ud with its pro-
gram. No wage increase. Elimination of the union shop and check-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 427
off. No job security, with the right of the company to discharge em-
ployees at will.
Since this program was a direct and basic attack on local 758, we
had no alternative except to exercise our right to terminate the con-
tract. Although we sought to continue negotiations, the company
refused. Still we did not strike.
The next thing that happened was that an A. F. of L. union sought
representation of the employees, local 1031 of IBEW in Chicago,
which, if I may interrupt, Mr. Sears, a big, high-priced Gold Coast
lawyer, had defined this local as a good Chicago patriotic union.
That was a union which was investigated in Detroit several months
ago about swindling money from the imion's welfare fund. The
president of the local, Mike Darling, even admitted receiving a gift
of $30,000 from the Admiral Corp. in Chicago. This is a union that
Mr. Sears termed as a good patriotic union.
But in an NLRB election in March 1953, local 758 won by 138 to
66 and was again certified by the Board.
Did the company then agree to bargain? It did not, despite our
patient and persistent efforts. In view of the overwhelming evidence
that the company was determined to destroy our local union, we had
no alternative except to take a strike vote. The membership voted for
the strike, and the strike date was set for July 23, 1953.
Since we do not approve of strikes unless they are absolutely neces-
sary, we made a final desperate effort to negotiate by writing the com-
pany as follows on July 16 :
[Registered mail]
July 16, 1953.
C. A. Warner,
President, Precision Scientific Co.,
Chicago, III.
Dear Sir : On April 10, 1953, this union was certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as bargaining representative of employees of Precision Scientific
Co.
On April 21, 1953, we wrote you requesting union lecognition and a meeting
to negotiate a contract. On April 21, you wrote us refusing our request.
Charges against your company for refusing to bargain are now before the
NLRB.
We hereby inform you that, in support of our certification and to obtain the
union recognition to which we are lawfully entitled, a strike at Precision has
been authorized.
In order to make a final effort at peaceful settlement of this matter, we hereby
again request recognition of this union and are prepared to meet with you on
Tuesday or Wednesday, July 21 or 22, 1953, to negotiate a contract.
Should you continue to decline to recognize the union as required by law, we
have no alternative but to take necessary action to obtain union recognition and
collective bargaining.
Very truly yours,
James Pinta,
Business Manager, Local 758, Mine, Mill.
The company ignored this temperate appeal, so we had no recourse
but to strike on July 23.
If ever a strike was justified, it was this one, and we are sure
that the members of this subcommittee will agree with us. We had
spent a year and a half pursuing our rights under our agreement with
the company and under the National Labor Relations Act. We had
won the arbitrator's award. We had won another Labor Board elec-
tion. We had been patient and restrained under the company's provo-
cations, its violation of its agreement, its violation of the law of the
428 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
land, its unconcealed purpose to destroy local 758 in the plant, and
to debase the wages and working conditions of its employees.
A stage such as this, with a company like this writing the script,
with the political atmosphere what it is, the theme of the last act of
the play is inevitable. The villain, gentlemen, is — communism.
The company found its handle in section 9 (h). When local 758
filed a charge with the Labor Board alleging the company's refusal
to bargain, did the company deny the charge ? No ; it did not, because
it could not. Instead, the company claimed that local 758 and the
International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers were not
"labor organizations" as defined in the law because they are commu-
nistic and therefore could not be in compliance with section 9 (h)
despite the filing of the required affidavits.
Despite the Labor Board's settled and definite policy that this may
not be made an issue in an unfair labor practice case, the company
attempted to turn the hearing before the trial examiner into a smear
of jSIine, Mill, and its officers. In any event, the trial examiner made
his report in November 1953, finding against the company and recom-
mending that the Board issue a cease-and-desist order requiring the
company to bargain with local 758 in good faith. The matter is now
jjending before the Board itself.
What has happened to our strike? Every worker in the plant went
out. For 10 weeks the strike was a model of orderliness without a
single picket-line incident or disturbance.
Despite this, a lower State court issued an injunction against the
strike based on the same argument the company had used before the
Labor Board. We are appealing this outrageous and illegal injunc-
tion. But in the meantime we have had to obey it and instruct the
workers to go back to work.
Thus far, we have to admit, the company is on top. It has evaded
its duty to bargain for 2 whole years. Our members in the plant have
no protection by local 758 or any other union. There is no job security,
there is no seniority, there is no grievance procedure, nothing. In the
meantime, our members in other plants in Chicago have won sub-
stantial wage increases and other benefits.
Also, I would like to mention right here, which is not in this state-
ment, that there have been several layoffs in the plant out of seniority,
and when a grievance was presented about the layoffs we were told
it was none of our business, that the company would do to the em-
ployees what they see fit, and the only reason for the layoff was lack
of work, not because of the workers' ability or lack of performance,
but lack of work, which goes to show you how much the injunction
has harmed us so far.
We are here first to tell you the facts and the truth. If this sub-
committee is interested in making a contribution to decent labor re-
lations, it should help us secure the rights which belong to us under
the law. If this subcommittee is interested in preserving the rights
guaranteed by Federal law, it will look into the illegal action of the
Illinois court.
If this subcommittee believes that the members of the Labor Board
should live up to their oath of office, it will inquire why it is that
the board has sat on our case for 3 months, when it has decided the
same issue over and over again in other cases, and its policy has been
upheld in the courts.
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 429
Mr. Arens. Mr. O'Brien, for your enlightenment, there is a com-
mittee of the Senate called the Committee on Education and Labor,
AA'hich is concerned with all of those matters. The jurisdiction of
this particular committee is exclusively the question of the internal
security, communism. This committee here would not have juris-
diction, as such, to look into the labor-management relations problems,
or to look into the questions which you have been enumerating here.
The individual Senators would have an interest in the matter, but this
committee's jurisdiction set uj3 by the resolution of the Senate is ex-
clusively just to inquire into and legislate on the subject of com-
munism and of tlie internal security matters of the United States.
I hope I have made that clear to you.
Mr. O'Brien. I mention these facts here, because I mean the com-
pany did appear before you, the company representatives, and they
explained their side of the story.
Mr. Arens. And we are glad to have you here.
Mr. O'Brien. We are just here to do the same thing.
Mr. Arens. We are glad lo have you here.
Mr. O'Brien. These are some of the things the subcommittee should
do, but above all things, the subconnnittee should not approve the
bills before it.
Taft-Hartley, and particularly section 9 (h) is bad enough. It
has made it possible for an employer like Precision to trample on its
agreement, to violate the law, to misuse a State court, to keep a union
out of its plant, to hold wages down, and to treat its workers wath
cynical contempt and with brutal disregard for elementary human
rights.
Mr. Arens. How has 9 (h) done that? Are you conversant with
9 (h) ? ^
Mr. O'Brien. I am familiar with it.
Mr. Arens. 9 (h) is what provision ?
Mr. O'Brien. That the officers of the union, both local and inter-
national, must file a non-Communist affidavit.
Mr. Arens. Could you enlighten me as to how that has been used
to hold down wages and to treat the workers with cynical contempt ^
Mr. O'Brien. By the company using that as their only argument
for nonnegotiating with our union. That is the only argument they
have used.
Mr. Arens. How have they used it? I do not understand.
Mr. O'Brien. I think, by reading this thing here, they got an
injunction in the Illinois State court by raising that argument.
Mr. Arens. By using what argument ?
Mr. O'Brien. Under the non- Communist affidavit.
Mr. Arens. What was the argument on that non-Communist affi-
davit ? I do not understand what the facts were. I understand what
9 (h) provides.
Mr. Witt. Would you mind if I said a word on that ?
Mr. Arens. I would be ^lad to have you do so, sir.
Mr. Witt. Do you mind, Danny ?
Mr. O'Brien. Go ahead.
Mr. Witt. As Brother O'Brien is trjdng to say in his statement,
when the case in which the union filed unfair labor practices against
the company came before the NLEB, the company did not deny that it
43903—54 28
430 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
had refused to bargain with the union, but the company sought the
right in the hearing before the trial examiner to show that the non-
Communist affidavits filed by the officers, particularly of the inter-
national union, were false.
They did that principally on the hearings you were present at,
conducted by Senator McCarran, conducted in Salt Lake City in 1952.
The examiner held that that was the question to be determined
by the Labor Board administratively and not there determined in an
unfair labor practices case and, as Mr, O'Brien's statement said, the
trial examiner issued a report setting forth that position, and that
is now before the National Labor Relations Board.
So, in injecting this issue of the truth or falsity of the affidavits,
the company has been able to keep this case going for this length of
time.
Mr. Arens. Was there any evidence in the case along this line ? I
heard the testimony here, but I do not recall. Was there testimony
that in fact Mine Mill is not a labor organization, that it is in the
same status as a company union, namely, an organization controlled
by some other agency?
Mr, Witt. That is a variation of the company's argument. The
company's argument included that concept, but the Board's answer
to it in other cases, and the trial examiner's answer in this case was
that as far as that whole question is concerned it is dealt with
by section 0 (h) of the act, that the definition of "labor organization"
in the National Labor Relations Act has nothing to do with it, and in
any event the employer cannot raise such an issue in an unfair labor
practice case.
Mr. Arens. Just to pursue the legal question further, may I ask
you this, Mr. Witt — and this is an assumption just to get the point
across :
Assuming that there is an organization which is controlled by an
outside agency, and let us bring in the Communist Party. Assuming
that the Communist Party controls a labor organization lock, stock,
and barrel, would the Board on this legal theory say that it does not
make any difference, that it could still be a labor organization, even
though controlled by the Communist Party, which is an outside
agency ?
Mr. Witt. That is the law, under the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947.
Mr. Arens. That is the issue that you are trying to get?
Mr. Witt. The Board, and the courts have sustained the Board.
There have been three recent cases in the court of appeals — the Board
lias taken the position that Congress has dealt with the problem in
section 9 (li), so that the question is disposed of when the Board has
decided that the appropriate people have filed their affidavits.
The sanctions which are ]jrovicled, as you know, are the sanctions of
the criminal law, section 1001 of title 18 of the Criminal Code.
If the affidavit is false, then the only way the Govermnent can
proceed is under the criminal law.
Mr. Arens. Can we get one other point clear? You were counsel
to the National Labor Relations Board at one time, and are fairly
conversant with the law.
Let us assume a case where a man is a member of the Communist
Party today. He resigns this afternoon, sends in a formal resigna-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 431
tion this afternoon. Then he signs the non-Communist affidavit the
next day. Then the succeeding day he rejoins the party.
Is he in viohxtion under section 9 (h) '? Is he in violation of the
Criminal Code ?
Mr. Witt. Mr, Arens, I would prefer not to go into that, except
to this extent, if you don't mind :
The Department of Justice has stated its interpretation of section
9 (h) on several different occasions, and that issue is being tried out
in several cases.
Mr. AiiENS. Now, we have introduced in this record here the union
jDaper of August 15, 1949, in which Morris Travis is quoted in this
paper as saying that he has been "confronted with the problem of
resigning from the Communist Party, of w^hich I have been a member,
in order to make it possible for me to sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit.-'
He said, "I have decided to do this with the utmost reluctance and
with a great sense of indignation," and so forth, and he has signed
the affidavit.
On the legal proposition which we have been discussing, do you
think that Mr, Travis was in violation of the penal provisions of
9 (h) because he said he was a Communist and he resigned so he could
sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit? That at least appears in the union
paper of August 15, 1949.
Mr. "U'^iTT. Well, Mr. Arens, may I say that that issue is presently
before the National Labor Relations Board in a special proceeding,
and may I also add, so that there will be no confusion in the record,
tliat the question vou put before you came to that statement was some-
Avhat different. "You put the case of a person who is a Communist
today, resigns tomorrow, signs the affidavit the next day and then
rejoins the Communist Party the following day, which is a question
that is different.
Mr. Arens. It is a little different in the Travis case. There is no
indication, at least in the publication, that the day following the
signing of the affidavit he rejoined the Communist Party.
Mr, Wttt. That is the thing I w^anted to be clear about.
Mr, Arens, The only thing here is that he said he left the party,
Mr. Witt. That is what he said in the statement. We are familiar
with it, and you will remember we dealt with it in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Arens. I remember that we discussed it out tiiere. I apolo-
gize for the interruption, Mr. O'Brien. I think that that helped to
clear the record a little bit.
Mr. O'Brien. Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Our
dispute with Precision proves that it is the last refuge of union-bust-
ing, profit-hungry employers.
Yes, Taft-Hartley is bad enough, but we are still confident that
sooner or later Precision will have to enter into an honorable agree-
ment with us.
But, if the bills before the subcommittee became law. Precision and
every other employer with the same philosophy will have a wide open
avenue to the destruction of unionism and of decent wages, hours,
and working conditions.
Mr. Arens. Is there anvthing else ?
Mr. O'Brien. That is all,
Mr. Arens. I just want to ask you one other question.
432 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Do you feel in your heart tliat this subcommittee is out to bust up
unions, just deliberately to destroy unions?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
Mr. Arexs. You do ? How did you acquire that knowledge ? Has
somebody told you that?
Mr. O'Brien* No.
Mr. Arexs. What makes you feel that the motives here are to destroy
unions, rather than just to drive Communists out of unions?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, in our own case, in particular, Precision Scien-
tific Co.
Mr, Arens. I said the subcommittee.
Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
Mr. Arens. This subcommittee.
Mr. O'Brien. Well, you are following along the same lines that our
company is following along right now. They are using this Red
scare and this anticommunism stuff, because they are no more inter-
ested in driving Communists out of the country. Precision Scientific
I mean, than the average person is. That is all they are doing right
now, I mean, is trying to knock the union out of the shop entirely.
Even though they are not fully accomplishing the deed right now,
still and all they have gained by it.
For 2 years, for 3 years, we have only received 10 cents on our in-
crease in 3 years, whereas other shops in the Chicago area have re-
ceived 30 cents and 40 cents, and some even higher than that per hour.
We all know how the living conditions have gone up in the last
3 years. The Precision Scientific Co. isn't fooling any of the employees
there with this hiding behind the flag, that they are going to take
over a job that Uncle Sam should do, and this and that, because if
they were really interested in the employees' welfare, sure, they might
carry on an attack on what they call subversion and stuff like that,
but at the same time they would give their employees a decent wage
and decent working conditions, which they have failed to do there,
Mr. Arens. I do not know a thing about Precision Scientific Co.,
except that they testified here, or someone testified here for them.
What makes you discredit in your own heart and mind the motives
of this subcommittee? Is it because we permitted Precision, or what-
ever the company is, to come in here and testify ?
Mr, O'Brien, Wliat I have against this subcommittee, the same
way against any other antilabor bills, which that is my opinion of
them.
Mr. Arens. The issue is why is it that you feel these bills are anti-
labor as distinct from anti-Communist? I am sincere in asking you
that question.
INIr. O'Brien. Because they tend to throw a Red scare into the minds
of people, especially the working people in the country today.
We in the labor organizations, especially Mine, Mill, are the most
democratic organization that I have ever heard of. As I mentioned
before we elect every official away from, I mean, a shop steward, all the
way to the international president of our union.
Every dues-paying member in that union has a right to vote. We
decide ourselves on who to vote for, like I said, on his accomplishment,
what he stands for. We don't want this subcommittee or any Senator
or any Congressman telling us who we should elect for our inter-
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 433
national president, any more than we want the boss to tell us who to
elect for a shop steward.
Mr. Arens. You know yourself that this legislation does not provide
for the subcommittee to tell you whom you should elect. You know,
of course, that the essence of this legislation would be to preclude a
Communist agent, or a member of the Communist conspiracy, from
being an officer, or preclude the National Labor Relations Board from
certifying as a bargaining agent any Communist-controlled organi-
zation.
Mr. Witt. As a legal question, I don't agree with that, Mr. Arens.
Mr. Arens. Let me ask the young man this question. You do not
want Communists running a labor organization, do you, irrespective
of how good they may be ?
Let us assume for the sake of argument that a particular Commu-
nist might be good at labor work, whatever work they do in a labor
organization. Let us assume that. You would not want them any
way being the head of your organization; would you?
Mr. O-Brien. The people I want as head of my organization would
be the people that I think are the best suited to do the job.
Mr. Arens. Well, now, do you think that a man who is good at the
job, but who is a spy, ought to be honored by being chosen to be the
head of a large labor organization?
Mr. O'Brien. No ; not a spy.
Mr. Arens. Do you think a man who is a saboteur ought to be ?
Mr. O'Brien. No; not a saboteur.
Mr. Arens. Do you think a man who is part of a conspiracy to
destroy this Government ought to be ?
Mr. O'Brien. No.
Mr. Arens. Don't you think that a Communist and the Communist
Party and the Communist apparatus in this country are dedicated to
spying, saboteuring, to destruction of this Government, and the way
of life that we know here in America ?
Mr. O'Brien. As I said before, we- —
Mr. Arens. Could you answer me that ?
Mr. O'Brien. Just a minute now. I will get aroimd to it.
Mr. Arens. All right, sir.
Mr. O'Brien. We will elect to office whoever is doing the best job.
If there is somebody running for office or in office that has committed
a crime, let the FBI or the Attorney General arrest and convict them,
if the man has committed a crime.
Mr. Arens. Do you think that Communists are part of a criminal
conspiracy ?
Mr. O'Brien. That I couldn't answer you. I am not that well
acquainted with the law.
Mr. Arens. It is not a question of law. It is a question of fact.
Don't you think that the Communists pose a threat to this country ?
Mr. O'Brien. I still say I mean I am not acquainted with what is a
crime and what isn't. That is what we have the FBI for and we have,
I mean, our administrative branch for.
Mr. Arens. Would you personally favor legislation which would
make it a crime to be a knowing, active, conscious member of the
Communist Party ?
Mr. O'Brien. Would I favor legislation ?
434 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Arens. Would you favor making it a crime '? A crime is what
the Congress or some legislative body says it is.
Mr. O'Brien. I have never given it much thought.
Mr. Arens. You have confidence in the FBI, do you not ?
Mr. O'Brien. Not the utmost confidence. I have some degree of
confidence.
Mr. Arens. Do you have confidence in J. Edgar Hoover?
Mr. O'Brien. Not the utmost confidence. I don't have the utmost
confidence in any of our law-enforcement agencies. None of them
are infallible.
Mr. Arens. Do you think they are Red baiting and witch hunting
too?
Mr. O'Brien. I don't know. I have never looked into too much
of their accomplishments.
Mr. Arens. Well, we thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Witt. Mr. Arens, as long as we are here, if I may take just a
moment, although of course I do not have a transcript of the testimony
already given before the subcommittee, I am advised that two wit-
nesses mentioned my name. I would just like to say a word on that,
if I may. Otherwise my silence may he considered
Mr. Arens. I do not understand what you are saying, Mr. Witt.
Mr. Witt. I am sorry. I understand that two witnesses who have
ap]:>eared before this subcommittee had occasion to mention my name.
Mr. Arens. Do you mean in the last few days?
Mr. Witt. Yes — or since the committee started these hearings.
I would like to say a word about that.
As I understand tlieir testimony — I have not seen a transcript —
there was one witness from Idaho — I think his name was Drummond —
whom I am advised said something about my having been in the Coeur
d'Alene Mines in 1949 and started the strike up there, or something
along those lines. Whatever he said, I would like the record to show
that I have been in the Coeur d'Alene Mines on only one occasion.
That was in 1952. when there was an important and extended repre-
sentation proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board.
So I don't know what this witness was talking about, if he did say
1 was up there in connection with that.
Mr. Arens. I have no independent recollection of it at all, Mr. Witt.
The record will speak for itself.
Mr. Witt. All right. Fine.
Then I understand Mr. Sears, who appeared here on behalf of the
Precision Co., about which Brother O'lBrien has testified, mentioned
my name, and I am advised that he said that after I left the National
Labor Relations Board I began to represent the Mine, Mill, and
Smelter Workers' Union. That is a fact.
I don't know how soon I began to represent them, but soon after I
left the National Labor Relations Board, I don't see what relevance
that has, and I would like the comment of Mr. Sears to be stricken
from the record, if he did make such a comment.
Mr. Arens. I cannot understand what the nature of your protest is.
It is the truth, is it not ?
Mr. Witt. It is the truth, but it has no relevance to this legislation
or anything else, whom I represent.
Mr, Arens. I do not recall the manner in which it was used by the
witness. You do not, of course, deny that you have repeatedly been
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 435
identified before congressional committees as a member of the Com-
munist Party ?
Mr. Witt. Mr. Arens, I would tliank you not to get off into some-
thing else. I will deal with that when we get to it. Just on this
point, I don't see how it is any concern of Mr. Sears or this subcom-
mittee whether, when I left the Government I went to work tor tne
Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, or whether I went to w^ork for Pre-
cision Scientific or some other large corporation. I want to protest
against that, as a member of the bar and as an American citizen,
doing the work I should be doing.
Mr. Arens. Do you want to deal with this second question that I
just posed? You said you would deal with that.
Mr. Witt. Will you give it to me again ?
Mr. Arens. You brought the subject up and said that your name
had been mentioned by witnesses before this committee. I at first
thought you meant witnesses who had identified you as a member of
the Communist Party, and I had no recollection in the last few days
of that having transpired.
I knew that it had transpired, as I understand it, repeatedly before
congressional committees. Do you want to deny or affirm it?
Mr. Witt. I don't know about the word "repeatedly." The record
speaks for itself.
You don't have to get into this kind of baiting when we are here
considering this legislation. We asked for an opportunity to appear.
Mr. Arens. Don't you think it is of concern to the committee, in
testing the credibility of a witness, in testing the amount of weight
which should be given to his testimony, to know whether or not that
particular witness is a Communist?
Mr, Witt. Mr. Arens, if that is of interest to the committe and if,
as you say, I have been identified, the committee knows where to get
those records. No, 1.
No. 2, Mr. Arens, if there is any question as to my credibility, there
are means of getting at that. This is not an adversary proceeding, as
you know, Mr. Arens.
Mr. Arens. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the
Communist Party?
Mr. WiTr. I wondered why you showed so much restraint.
Mr. Arens. If you want me to answer as to why we showed re-
straint, our reason is that we figured that it was not necessary, that
that ground had been covered so frequently before.
Mr. Witt. When I take occasion to say that a witness who appeared
before you was mistaken in something that he said, then you think the
occasion has come for you to put that question to me.
When I say to you I think it is improper for this committee to sit
here and to listen to a counsel for a company who, seeking to bait this
union, as Brother O'Brien told you, to make the point as to what work
I did when I left the Government, then you have no other recourse,
Mr. Arens, except to ask me a question to which you will know the
answer, or to which you know what I would have to say, and I think
that is improper. I think you ought to withdraw it. I don't think
it is becoming to you in this role of counsel to the committee when
you are considering important legislation. That is what we are here
to discuss.
Mr. Arens. Well, now, in the consideration of that legislation by
the subcommittee, don't you think it is important for the subcommittee
436 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
to know who are the people who are members of the Communist
Party who are speaking on the legislation, and who are the people
who are not members of the Communist Party who are speaking on
tlie legislation?
Mr. Witt. No ; I don't, Mr. Arens.
Mr. Arens. You don't think that is an issue ?
Mr. Witt. May I tell you why ?
Mr. Arens. I will be glad to have you say so.
Mr. Witt. Again we come back to the first amendment. Among
other things, the first amendment guarantees, in addition to freedom
of thought and freedom of speech and freedom of association, to which
Professor Countryman addressed himself, the first amendment gives
me, as an American citizen, the right to petition my Government for
redress of grievances. I personally, and as counsel to the Mine, Mill,
and Smelter Workers, am here to protest the serious and profound
grievance which would be imposed upon the members of my own union
and upon the American people, if we passed this legislation, and I
think when you interfere with my effort to do that as a citizen, and as
a lawj^er, I think again you are subverting the first amendment.
Mr. Arens. Well, now, will you kindly answer the question: Are
you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Witt. I ask you again, Mr. Arens, to withdraw the question,
because I don't think you want it to appear in this record in this
context.
You have no other answer in support of this legislation that you
have given this morning that makes sense, in terms of our system of
government, than to ask me a question of that character, in the same
way you have asked it of others who have appeared to protest against
this proposed legislation.
Mr. Arens. Now, people who are under oath before congressional
committees, if they lie to that committee, are subject to the pains and
penalties of perjury, are they not?
Mr. Witt. Do you really want me to answer that ?
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Mr. Witt. I find that very amusing.
Mr. Arens. Isn't that correct ? As a matter of law, a person who
would lie, and I am using this as a hypothetical case, a person who
would lie before a congressional committee is subject to the pains and
penalties of perjury?
Mr. Witt. All you are doing is asking whether perjury is perjury,
murder is murder, and larceny is larceny. And perjury is perjury.
Mr. Arens. But after a person is released from subpena or is no
longer under oath before a congressional committee, he can tell all the
lies he wants without being subject to the pains and penalties of per-
jury; isn't that correct?
Mr. Witt. Mr. Arens, I have heard you ask that question on several
other occasions. I have read many records of congressional hearings
at which you were present at which I wasn't present, and that is one
of your favorite questions. And again I say to you, you are subverting
our democratic way of life. I say to you whether a person is a Com-
munist
Mr. Arens. Don't you want to answer that question?
Mr. Witt. Yes ; I am going to answer it.
Mr. Arens. Will you tell me whether or not, after this hearing is
over and after a person is released from the pains and penalties of
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 437
his oath, he could step out in the hall and tell other people, "Of course
I am not a Communist, never was a Communist. I am not telling that
witch-hunting, redbaiting committee that."
Isn't that what a person could do ?
Mr. Witt. I don't see what your problem is.
Mr. Arens. I think you do see what my problem is.
Mr. Witt. I wish I did, but it would take me far afield.
Mr. Arens. Answer my question : "Are you now or have you ever
been a member of the Comnnmist Party?" while you are under oath.
Mr. WriT. You have not given me a chance to answer your last
one, and it is important, because I cherish the Bill of Rights, I
cherish my status as a member of the law, as a citizen of the United
States, as a person who has tried to live up to his oath as a lawyer,
and tried to serve his clients, and I say to you it is no business of
yours what I say when I get out that door, whether I say I am a
Communist or not a Communist, or whether I call you names.
Mr. Arens. You are dead right.
Mr. Witt. Or say whatever I please. That is our system of gov-
ernment, and I cherish it, and I spent years fighting against people
like you who seek to overthrow it, not with force or violence, but
by unconstitutional legal procedures.
Mr. Arens. Now, will you please answer the question while you are
under oath ?
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party?
Mr. Witt. ]\Ir. Arens, you were present in Salt Lake City when
I testified before Senator McCarran, sitting as a one-man subcom-
mittee. You recall he asked me that question, I am sure. I don't
think you were present when I appeared before Senator Jenner last
May, in which I was asked that question, but I think you are familiar
with my answer.
So I say to you, Mr. Arens, that you have absolutely no purpose,
absolutely no purpose, in asking this question except in the hope —
and in the vain hope — that Brother O'Brien may be confused, or that
you will embarrass me, or that you will achieve some ulterior purpose,
which is ■
Mr. Arens. What is that? What is that ulterior purpose? Tt
might be to demonstrate to the members of Mine, Mill who are present
here, and to the members who might read this record, and to the
American people, that in truth and in fact, as the committee said,
Mine, Mill top leadership, including its counsel, are Communists.
Mr. WiiT. Mr. Arens, I have been in public life now for more than
20 years, since I came down here in 1933 to work under Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, and I consider my representation of labor unions
as public life.
During almost that entire period I have been under attack, in one
way or another. I have been under attack as a New Dealer. I was
under attack because I was Secretary of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and was enforcing the Wagner Act. And since I got
out of the Government I have been under attack because I have been
devoting my life and earning my living by the representation of
labor unions, because of the profound contribution, I think, they have
made.
Mr. Arens. Has anybody attacked you for being a Communist ?
438 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Witt. Attacked me for being a Communist ?
Mr. Arens. Yes.
Mr. Witt. Certainly, Mr. Arens, you Imow that.
Mr. Arens. Have you ever denied it under oath ?
Mr. Witt. I have been attacked for being a Communist.
Mr. Arens. Are you a Communist ?
Mr. Witt. It is up to Brother O'Brien, not up to you, to decide
whether he wants me to become counsel to the International Union
of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, and local 758, and it will be a
black day in American history when you or a majority of the Senate
can say to Brother O'Brien and other Americans who are old enough
to think for themselves, whom they may or may not elect as officers,
and who they may or may not retain as lawyers, what they may
believe, what they maj^ not believe. That is all you are interested in.
Mr. Arens. Will you kindly answer the question while you are
under oath ? ■
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party ?
Mr. Witt. Let me give you some other reasons why the question is
improper, without yet getting to the technical reasons.
If you want to stay here, I have a lot of time, and will be delighted
to give you all the reasons why the question is improper.
I think, Mr. Arens, it is improper, for me to answer that question
to you in the context of these hearings, unless you first answer a good
many questions about yourself.
Now, there are a good many questions I would like to ask you, if
you permit me to ask them.
Mr. Arens. You know, Mr. Witt, you are here as a witness under
oath.
Why don't you answer that question : Are you now or have you
ever been a member of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Witt. Mr. Arens, if you don't know why I don't
Mr. Arens. I think I know pretty well why you don't.
Mr. Witt. "\Yliy do you ask me, then ? That is the point I want to
make.
^^Hiat is your purpose in asking that question? Wliy don't you
tell me what your purpose is, and perhaps you will convince me. I am
listening to you with an open mind, difficult though that is.
You tell me what your purpose is.
Mr. Arens. I have asked you the question several times, and I will
ask you once more, and then we will recess, subject to the call of the
Chair.
While you are under oath, will you now testify as to whether or
not you are now or ever have been a member of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Witt. Unless you explain the purpose of the question to me,
Mr. Arens, I am sorry, I am unable to comply and, if you want to
pursue it further, I will be delighted to have the question presented
to the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. Arens. Is there anything else, gentlemen ?
Mr. Witt. Danny, have you anything else you want to add ?
Mr. O'Brien. Tliat is about all.
Mr. Arens. The session, then, will be in recess, subject to the call
of the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 1 p. m. the committee was recessed, subject to the
call of the Chair.)
SUBVEESIYE INFLUENCE IN CEETAIN LABOK
OKGANIZATIONS
THUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1954
United States Senate,
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration
OF THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal.
Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington^ D. C.
The task force of the subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m.,
in room 341, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler,
presiding.
Present : Senator Butler.
Also present: Richard Arens, special counsel; and Edward R.
Duffy, professional staff member.
Senator Butler. The meeting will come to order.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, there are several communications which
have been received eitlier by yourself or by the Internal Security Sub-
commitee respecting the legislation which has been assigned to the
task force under your chairmanship. I respectfully suggest that at
this point in the record certain of these communications be incor-
porated.
Senator Butler. It will be so ordered.
(The communications follow:)
Office of the Assistant Secretaky of Defe:nse,
Legislative and Public Affairs,
Washington 25, 1). C, March 5, 1954.
Hon. John Marshall Butler,
United S!tafes Senate.
Dear Senator Butler : This is in response to the request for comments on S. 23,
S. 1254, and S. 1606, bills designed to provide appropriate controls over Com-
mnnist-dominated unions.
The problems relating to Communist-dominated unions are currently under
active study in several interested departments of the executive branch, in-
cluding the Department of Defense. It is anticipated that appropriate legisla-
tive recommendations resulting from this study will be made by the admin-
istration in the near future.
The Department of Defense, therefore, desires to defer from commenting on
S. 23, S. 1254, and S. 1606 until such time as the executive branch has completed
its study and formulated a legislative recommendation to the Congress with
respect to Communist-dominated unions.
Sincerely youi's,
Richard A. Buddeke
(For the Assistant Secretary).
439
440 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
National Association of Manufacturers,
Law Department,
Washington 6, D. C, Mnrch 3, 19iiM.
Hon. John M. Butler,
Chairmnn, Internal Seciirify Subcommittee Task Force,
Senate Committee on the Judiciarij, Senate Office Building,
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Chairman : Attached is a statement on behalf of the National
Association of ^lanufacturers directed to several bills (S. 1606, S. 12.")4, and S. 23)
proposing measures to deal with Communist influence and control in labor
ori^anizations.
We would appreciate very much having this statement included in the record
of your hearings on these bills.
Thanlc you, for your consideration in this regard.
Very truly yours,
Lambert H. Miller,
General Counsel.
Statement of Law Department, the National Association of Manufacturers
This statement is filed on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers,
a voluntary membership association with more than 20,000 manufacturing com-
panies as members. It is directed to measures before this subcommittee for deal-
ing with Communist domination and influence in labor organizations, a subject
which is widely recognized among our membership and elsewhere as one of major
importance to the national welfare and defense. There is also a widespread
belief that the non-Communist affidavit provisions of the Labor-Management
Itelations Act, although tliey have accomplished much in focusing public at-
tention on the pi'oblem and in aiding some unions to rid themselves of Communist
domination, do not provide an adequate solution for the entire problem. This
association, therefore, sincerely appreciates this opportunity to submit views
on the proiwsals now under consideration by the subcommittee to provide more
effective measures for this purpose. These include S. KiOO introduced by Senator
Butler (Republican of Maryland), S. 1254, by Senator Goldwater (Republican
of Arizona), and S. 23 by Senator McCarran (Democrat of Nevada). With
respect to S. 1600, a statement was filed with the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary by tliis association on July 14, 1953. To avoid repetition of the mat-
ters covered therein, a copy of that statement is attached hereto with request
that it be made part of the record before this subcommittee.
Under S. 1254, the Subversive Activities Control Board created by the Internal
Security Act of 10.10 woiUd be authorized and required, upon petition filed by
the Attorney C4eneral, to determine whether a labor organization or an officer or
employee thereof or any person in a position to influence the policies thereof
is a "Communist labor representative" as defined in the bill. If the Board so
finds, it is directed to order the labor organization and the persons against whom
such order is entered to cease and desist from acting as a representative of
employees. Penalties are provided to make the Board's orders effective.
Although proceedings under the bill could be instituted only by the Attorney
General, he would doubtless make provision for receiving information from the
public, which, of course, would include all interested persons who have reason
to lielieve a labor organization is dominated or influenced by Communists. Pre-
sumably such information would be investigated through the FBI, and petition
would be filed by the Attorney General whenever such investigation furnished
adequate reason to believe that the information is true.
The term "Communist labor representative" is broadly defined in the bill to
include any labor organization or oflScer or employee thereof or any person in a
position to influence the policies thereof, who is or has been affiliated with or
has aided or supported any organization listed as subversive l)y the Attorney
General under P^xecutive Order 9835, or who has advocated or supported Com-
munist policies, or has instigated or encouraged strikes, slowdowns, or other
interruptions of work to aid the Communist movement.
The bill would apply not only to representatives of employees in industries
affecting commerce, but also to representatives of employees engaged in per-
forming services or producing or assembling goods for the United States or any
department or agency thereof. Thus it would extend beyond the coverage of
the Labor-Management Relations Act and would include other areas where
Communist influence may have serious effects on the national welfare. At the
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 441
same time, however, the bill would adopt the LMRA definition of "employer"
which excludes certain organizations and industries. Under this definition, for
example, persons subject to the Railway Labor Act would be excluded and thus
the bill would not reach labor organizations in the railroad industry, which is
an important and sensitive one in the national defense program. Since the
bill is in the nature of an Internal Security Act, and is not limited to the cover-
age of the LMRA, it is Itelieved that the committee might wish to consider
whether the LilRA definition is suitable or whether it might be preferable for
the bill to provide its own definition of "employer."'
The bill provides for notice, public hearing, right to counsel, opportunity to
defend against the charges contained in the petition filed by the Attorney General,
and right of judicial review. In addition to conducting hearings itself, the Board
may establish a permanent panel of retired Federal judges who voluntarily make
themselves available to conduct such hearings at the request of the Chairman
of the Board. Hearing procedure is similar to that provided in the Internal
Security Act of 1950. Appropriate standards, also similar to those contained in
that act. are provided to guide the Board in determining whether an organization
or individual is a Communist labor representative. Findings of the Board must
be based upon "the preponderance of the testimony taken." Upon judicial review
such findings are conclusive only if "supported by substantial evidence on the rec-
ord considered as a whole." No sanctions or penalties would attach until the pro-
cedures of the bill have been complied with and an order has been issued and has
become final. Thus the bill appears to provide due process and opportunity for a
fair hearing and impartial determination before any penalty may be imposed.
If, after due notice and hearing, the Board finds that the party charged is a
Communist labor representative, it would be authorized to issue an order requir-
ing, among other things, that such organization or individual cease and desist
from (1) acting as a labor representative, (2) soliciting or accepting any money
or other thing of value as fees or dues in a labor organization, and (3) instigating,
encouraging, or supporting any strike, slowdown, or other interruption of work
among employees. In addition, in the case of an organization, the order would
require such organization (1) to dismiss or permanently remove from office any
officer or employee found by the Board to be a Communist labor representative,
(2) sever all relations with any labor organization found by the Board to be a
Communist labor representative, and (3) take such other appropriate action as
the Board may direct to effectuate the purposes of the act.
Violation of the Board's order by acting as a labor representative, accepting
dues, or instigating or supporting strikes, slowdowns or other interruptions of
work would be punishable by fine of not more than .$10,000 or, in the case of an
individual, by such fine or imprisonment for not more than 5 years or both. Each
day an offense occurs or continues would constitute a separate offense.
Furthermore, while an order of the Board is in effect, an organization or Indi-
vidual against whom it is issued would have no rights or standing under the
Labor-Management Relations Act to act as representative or to l)ring suits for
damages or other relief under section 301, and no action taken by employees under
its leadership would be protected concerted activity under the LMRA.
The bill would not, however, expressly relieve employers of any obligation to
bargain with a representative charged as a Communist labor repi-esentative. Pre-
sumably, after a final order has been entered, such relief would be Implied from
the various provisions of the bill. Until final order, however, any statutory duty
to bargain under the LMRA would apparently remain in effect," and this would
also- seem true if employees should designate an organization as their representa-
tive in an NLRB election held pursuant to section 14 of the bill while charges
are pending against such an organization. In this respect, adoption of a modified
provision of S. 1606 might be considered desirable in order to permit the Board
in its discretion to suspend rights and duties under the l:MRA while charges are
pending in cases where its investigation shows need for immediate disqualification
of a labor organization.
Likewise, while an order is in effect, the Norris-LaGuardia Act and sections
6 and 20 of the Clayton Act would be inapplicable with the resiilt that injunc-
tive relief would be available to private parties. Before an order has been issued,
the National Labor Relations Board could hold an election on petition of 20
percent of the employees represented by any representative against which a peti-
tion has been filed by the Attorney General, without regard to the limitation
of IMRA section 9 (c) (3) which prevents more than 1 election in any 12-month
period, and without regard to administrative policies of NLRB.
442 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
After setting up these procedures, the bill would repeal the non-Communist
affidavit provisions now contained in LMKA section 9 (h) and the reference
thereto in section 8 (a) (3).
The provisions of S. 1254 seem appropriate for dealing with the broad prob-
lem. It provides both criminal penalties and withdrawal of rights and protection
under the Labor-Management Relations Act.
It is noted that S. 23 is more limited in its prohibitions and penalties. It
would make it unlawful for any person who is knowingly a member of an organi-
zation which hasi been registered or ordered to register under the Internal Se-
curity Act to hold any office or employment in a labor organization as defined
in the Labor-Management Relations Act. Violation would be punishable by fine
of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years or both.
The bill contains an immunity provision under which any person may be com-
pelled to testify after claiming constitutional privilege against self-incrimina-
tion. It does not, however, specify by whom or the extent to which the im-
munity may be granted. It is believed that the operation of this section of the
bill should be given careful consideration to assure that immunity will not be
granted too freely or too broadly, and that at the same time individuals will
not be deprived of any constitutional rights.
It is noted that S. 23 would declare that nothing in any statute of the United
States shall preclude an employer from discharging without liability any em-
ployee who voluntarily continues as a member of an organization after it has
been designated as subversive, or who conceals his membership therein, or who
refuses to state to a duly constituted congressional legislative committee whether
or not he is or has knowlingly been a member of such organization.
In this connection, it should perhaps be mentioned that present Federal law
apparently does not prevent discharge for communism or other cause but that
some State antidiscrimination laws may present serious obstacles to employers
both in obtaining necessary information concerning subversive activities or affilia-
tions of employees, and in discharging for such reason.
CONCLUSION
The bills before the subcommittee seems well designed to deal with the problem
of Communist domination and influence in labor organizations. Because of the
gravity of the problem, remedial legislation must be broad in scope and must
provide adequate penalties to accomplish its purpose, while at the same time
protecting individual rights. Many of the necessary sanctions and safeguards
appear to be provided in S. 1254 with possible amendments incorporated from
S. 1606 and S. 23.
In December 1952 the board of directors of the National Association of Manu-
facturers adopted an official policy position that "no employer should recognize,
or be required to recognize, or deal with any collective bargaining agency which
is led or dominated" by subversive groups. Clearly these bills move in that
direction and would strengthen and make more effective the public policy of elim-
inating Communists from positions of influence in labor organizations. Accord-
ingly, the association is in accord with the objectives expressed in the bills under
consideration.
Statement of .Joseph A. Beiene, President of Communications Workers of
America, CIO, Regarding S. 1606 to the Task Force of the Senate Sub-
committee on Internal Security (Senator Butler, Chairman), 83d CbN-
gress, March 5, 1954
Mr. Chairman, we live in alarming times. Since the end of World War II,
communism has spread, like a prairie flre, in the old world. Much of Europe
has fallen under its domination. China, the most populous nation on earth, has
been enslaved. On this continent, it is reported, the Republic of Guatemala is
dominated by Communists. All the wealth and power of the United Nations pro-
duced only stalemate with communism in Korea. The distinguished majority
leader of the Senate was reported, in the Evening Star of February 24, 1954, to
have stated that in Indochina a coalition government with Communists included
is likely, and would "result in Conmmnist domination" within 2 years. It is
also said to be his opinion that if Indochina falls under Communist control
that will constitute the opening of all southeast Asia to Communist infiltration.
These shocking developments overshadow us notwithstanding the fact that
several committees in both Houses of Congress have investigated communism in
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 443
every nook and cranny of the Nation, having kept the newspapers filled with
Communist-scare stories, and have made of communism the commonest topic of
conversation in America today. I venture the opinion that more legislative
appropriations, more time, and more effort of the Congress of the United States
have been devoted to verbal attacks on communism than any other subject.
The Communist menace, Mr. Chairman, is not a goblin or a superstition that
can be dispelled by talk. It is engulfing the world. Only in the United States
can it be said there are no elected public oflJceholders, be they Federal or State
who are Communists. However, even under these circumstances, over the past
decade, it has been found a few Communists have held nouelected Government
positions. It would seem, Mr. Chairman, that the time has come for American
statesmen to take communism seriously, to treat it as an enemy to be met, rather
than as the subject of academic debate, the hobbyhorse of political opportunism.
There has been much talk about communism in the labor movement. But here
is the most significant fact about American labor : It is the only labor movement
in the world which is not dominated either by communism, or the diluted com-
mimism which is known as socialism. Much of value can be learned from a
careful analysis of that fact, so let me elaborate on it.
Italy is governed by a Christian Democratic government, but its labor move-
ment is completely dominated by Communists. France is governed by a Con-
servative government, but its labor movement is completely dominated by Com-
munists. The labor movements in the other free European countries are almost
without exception, controlled by, and dedicated to, some form of socialism.
In contrast, the American lalior movement, which has been excoriated and
villified so much in Congress, is the only free labor movement in the world which
is not dominated by the ideas and program of marxism.
Here is another significant fact. Thei*e has never been a time in the history
of American labor movement when any appreciable numlier of organized workers
have believed in or supported communism. How is it then that the labor move-
ment in the United States has remained relatively free of Marxist ideas and the
free-enterprise system has persisted and succeeded? The most important reason,
Mr. Chairman, is that the American labor movement itself has successfully re-
sisted communism and socialism. And the irrefutable conclusion is that only
the American labor movement itself can effectively resist communism in the
labor movement.
Let me amplify this. Communism is a fanatical religion which requires
fanaticism from its adherents. The fanaticism takes the form of an unquestion-
ing, completely subservient obedience to the mandates of the Communist Party
hierarchy. Paraphrasing an old sage who said : "Theirs it is to do and die ;
theirs is not to question why." Faced with this type of unreasoning devotion
to an evil cause, what are the weapons to be used against them? It has been
my experience that it can be combated and arrested only through eternal vigi-
lance on the part of those who are sensitive to its methods and its objectives.
The overwhelming majority of trade unionists in this country have this sensi-
tivity which is necessary to root out and expose these traitors.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, painful experience has taught us time and
time again that you cannot legislate morality. It is equally clear and irrefut-
able that you cannot legislate loyalty. All the laws on all the statute books do
not make people any purer. All the laws on all the statute books don't prevent
traitors from being traitors. You can drive communism underground with laws,
but that does not exterminate a Communist, nor the mental attitude which makes
a Communist.
Now, for you gentlemen, communism in the labor movement is a subject for
debate. But to me, gentlemen, and to other people in the labor movement, it
is a matter of life and death. We cannot complacently fight communism by
making speeches against it. We must meet it where it is, in offices, in factories,
in mines, on ships and railroads, in the secret cliques of infiltrators in locals,
and in the minds and fists of misguided men. You may lose your debate without
fatal consequences. But if the American laborer loses his fight against com-
munism, he loses his bread and butter, he loses his freedom, he loses everythine
that makes his life worth living.
It is not yet illegal for a person simply to be a Communist in the United States.
Commnni.sm is a criminal conspiracy directed against our way of life. In spite
of all the words that have been said against it, it has never yet been outlawed. The
Un-American Activities Committee has been operating for years. There is no
indication that it has reduced the number of Communists. The Taft-Hartley
Act, requiring labor leaders to file non-Communist afiidavits, was passed in 1947.
But there is no indication that it has reduced the number of Communists, or that
444 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
it has in any way diminished Communist control of certain labor unions. This
provision of the act is, and has always been, a farce. There must have been, in
the past 7 years, hundreds of perjured affidavits filed by Communists with the
National Labor Relations Board. And yet only 2 or 3 attempts have been made
to prosecute these perjurers. In the meantime, honest, democratic, American
labor unions have been put to tremendous effort and expense to comply with
this farcical provision. In spite of the most diligent effort, it is impossible for
a large, nationwide union, such as CWA, to keep in compliance, because of the
freqeunt election, transfer, or promotion of local officials. All of the hysterical
bowlings against communism in the Congress have not affected the activities of
those Communists who have seized control of a few unions.
The only successful resistance to communism has come, as I have said, in the
labor movement Itself. Every honest trade unionist has constituted himself a
committee of one to keep Communists out of his local and his international.
Communists have been met and defeated. They have been voted out of office.
They have been expelled from unions.
In 1950, the Congress of Industrial Organizations expelled from that body
the unions which were following the Communist Party line. Those unions are
still out of the CIO. CIO and A. F. of L. unions have fought against Communist
conspiratoi's in the labor movement, and have made a lot of progress in winning
woi'kers avray from them. But the fight is not won. Let me tell you why the
victory cannot be completed.
The Taft-Hartley Act, in effect, makes it illegnl for a union to expel a member
or deny membership on the groimd of communism. It makes it illegal for a
luiion to i-ecommend to an employer that an employee be discharged because he
is a Communist. Incidentally, the same ridiculous provisions operate to pre-
vent unions and employers from protecting themselves against criminals, sex
perverts, and dope peddlers.
Rome of the Connnunist-dominated unions are deeply entrenched in Am.erican
Indtistry. I am informed that they have all complied with the non-Communist
aftidavit provision. The Taft-Hartley Act enables them to become officially cer-
tified bargaining representatives. American industry does business with them.
In a larcre segment of the metal mining industry under American management,
the employees are represented by wtiat is reputed to be a Communist-dominated
union and I am advised this segment of that industry has good labor relations
with that union. The same is true of the West Coast stevedoring industry. A
small segment of our maritime industry deals with a reputedly Communist-
led union. So does a part of the electrical industry. And so on through the
long, dismal catalogue.
Gentlemen, these deplorable conditions exist in spite of the Communist Inves-
tigations, and not only in spite of. but to a large extent because of, the anti-
Communist provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act.
Isn't it time, gentlemen, that we begin to learn from experience? The ines-
capable lesson of these facts is that legislation Avhich is aimed at impeding
Communists by depriving labor unions of their rights will not work.
That, again is the approach of the Butler bill, S. 1606. It does not outlaw
communism. It does not make it illegal for a Communist to join or lead labor
organizations. It would deprive labor organizations of their rights if they had
the misfortune to have fallen under the control of Communists. The Commu-
nists themselves, mind you. would go unscathed. But the great body of work-
ers would be deprived of their constitutional right to bargain collectively for
their best interests.
Our experience has demonstrated repeatedly that there is no larse American
labor union In which a majority of the rank and file are Communists, or sym-
pathetic to communism. Tbe unions which have followed the Communist
Party line are unions which were captured by the incalculably skillful tech-
niques which communism has developed. These techniques include misrepre-
sentation, deliberate falsehood, slandered propaganda, professions of democracy,
infiltration, and corruption. These techniques have overthrown governments and
enslaved entire nations. It is little wonder that they have succeeded in a few
labor unions. But they have not succeeded, even in those unions, in making
Communists of the rank and file. It is important to America, as well as to the
labor movement, that these rank and file members be saved from communism.
Tlie way to do that is not to deprive them of their rights by left-handed attacks
on their leadership.
As I have .said, the only effective way to combat communism in the labor
movement is through the efforts of honest, loyal, vigilant trade unionists who
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 445
are sensitive to the danger. It is clear that the legislation now under considera-
tion would operate to frustrate the efforts of loyal union members. The prime
consideration should be to assure that the rights of loyal Americans are pre-
served and not chiseled away. Yet, under the Butler bill, organized labor would
be prostrate before the onslaught of Communist infiltration. I shall later illus-
trate in detail why this prostration will result.
But, this question keeps occurring to me. Why has not Congress faced the
Communist issue honestly and frankly? Why has it not moved directly against
the Communists? Congressional approaches to this vital problem remind me of
the old-fashioned movies. The Indians attack the wagon train. But they don't
ride directly into it. They ride around it. And the movie ends happily because
as the Indians ride around they are picked off by the pioneers. Congress has
ridden on around the Communist issue. But if Congress wishes to avoid the
fate of the Indians and the unhappy ending of our democratic institution, it is
time that it should tackle the Communist problem directly and in the open.
As I understand the Butler bill, it would work this way. Some i)erson would
charge that a labor union is controlled by Communists, whether officers or not.
The Board would investigate the charge, and if it had reason to believe the
charge was meritorious, it would simultaneously issue a complaint against the
union, and serve on the labor board an intermediate suspension order providing
that the labor union was ineligible to act as exclusive bargaining agent. The
charge has not been proven. The labor union has not been convicted. It has not
had an American trial. But while the question of its guilt or innocence remains
undetermined, it has been deprived of all of its rights, and all of its members
have lost the right to bargain as a group. It is clear that such a union could not
live and prostration will result. How long would the investigation take? How
much time would elapse before the union had its hearing? Nobody knows. But
our experience with the administrative and quasi-judicial bodies certainly proves
that long periods would elapse. It is not uncommon for an unfair labor practice
charge to consume years before it is finally determined. Under the Butler bill,
any period of delay would be a period in which the union itself and its members
would be without vital rights. No union could endure such conditions. The
right to act as bargaining agent is, of course, the life and soul of a union.
To illustrate the injustice of this proposed legislation, let us clearly air a
prejudice, and apply its provisions to another kind of unincorporated associa-
tion. Let us take a church. Let it be noted that charges have been made that
churches, too, are dominated by Communists. Let us substitute a church for
a labor organization in the Butler bill. It would then provide that if a person
filed a charge that a church was dominated by Communists, whether clergymen
or not, the Board would investigate the charge, and if it found it had merit, would
issue a complaint. Simultaneously, the church would be deprived of its right
to function as a church, and the members would be deprived of a dedicated
agency wherein they practice their faith. Would any person contend that such
a procedure would be in harmony with the American tradition?
Assume that the Butler bill has become a law, the charge of Communist domi-
nation has been heard, and the union has been exonerated. That would mean
that wrongfully, on the charge of a fanatic or a provocatory, the labor union
would have been deprived of its rights, and the members of their protection, with-
out just cause. Let us assume, on the other hand, the charge is sustained. What
happens? Nothing happens to the Communist leaders. The union is destroyed.
The Communist leaders are left to infiltrate other unions and start the whole
process all over. The innocent members are deprived of rights which belong to
every American worker.
It is written on the face of this bill that it would not succeed in harming, or
even impeding, communism. It is written on the face of the bill that communism
wouM be provided a lethal weapon for the destruction of American labor
unions.
Here is an invitation to Communists to spread their cancer through the Ameri-
can labor union movement. In the few American labor unions in which Com-
munists are found today, they are in positions of control. Apparently, the
framers of the party line believe that they can most efficiently bring about the
subversion of organized labor in America by placing their agents in positions of
control. But, the party line is not static. It changes in chameleon fashion — as
witness the reversal of Communist propaganda following the consummation of
the Hitler-Stalin pact in early World War II. If the Butler bill were enacted.
Communist strategists, bent upon destroying democratic labor unions in
43903 — 54 29
446 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
America, would undoubtedly change their tactics and seize upon this opportunity
to drain the very lifeblood from legitimate labor unions, and the tragedy is that
loyal, anti-Communist workers would be powerless to prevent it.
I have already pointed out that, under the Taft-Hartley Act. a hibor union
cannot deny membership to a Communist. That opens the door to intiltration.
Communists would attack a labor union liy infiltrating it. Then they have only
to engineer the filing of a charge, and they have brought about the suspension
of the life of the Iai)or union. Administrative delay will operate to complete the
destruction. In the process. Communists may be exposed ; but communism has
never hesitated to liquidate its individual members for the sake of its devilish
cause.
Labor espionage is not an unknown technique in Amei'ica. Prior to enactment
of the Wagner Act, it was a general practice throughout American industry and
it persisted thereafter. In the late thirties and early forties the LaFoIlette
investigation exposed its ugly evils.
"Since its inception in the ISTO's, labor espionage has spread throughout
practically the whole of American industry." (P. 8, report No. 46, pt. 3, Viola-
tions of Fi-ee Speech and Rights of Labor, reports. United States Senate, 1936-39.)
* * * "Espionage is the most efficient method known to management to pre-
vent unions from forming, to weaken them if they secure a foothold, and to wreck
them when they try their strength. Its use by management is an entirely 'natural
growth' in the long struggle to keep unions out of the shop.^
"But while management defends its antiunion 'policy' openly — in fact, adver-
tises it — it is less willing to defend or explain the 'methods' by which unions are
kept at bay. Even more sensitive and reluctant were the officials of the detective
agencies appearing before the committee. As the hired help of industry, engaged
in fighting unions, they made every effort to conceal that this was their true
function. They went even further than management in inventing a variety of
'reasons' for the employment of spies by industry. The odium attached to the
practice made even the practitioners squirm.
"The chief reasons advanced by employers and detective agency officials for
the use of labor spies were: (1) Protecting industry against radicalism and
communism; (2) i^reventing sabotage (closely linked to the first) ; (3) detecting
theft; (4) improving efficiency in methods and workers; merging into (5) im-
proving relations between employers and workers, or 'human engineering."
These 'legitimate' reasons for the employment of labor spies were strenuously
advanced by officials of the detective agencies and. with diminished enthusiasm
by representatives of industry. These 'reasons' were of so little merit that
aifter examination by the committee they were repudiated by the same officials
who advanced them. They are. however, interesting to examine for the light
they shed on the actual motive." * * *
"The hollowness of the Pinkerton crusade against radicalism, conducted by
the No. 1 detective agency in the United States, was revealed by the curious
admission of the superintendent of the Pinkerton Atlanta branch office that
they had never found any 'Communists' in the course of their operations :
"Senator LaFollette. You have done a good deal of investigating, according
to the ledger sheets, on radical and Communist activities, have you not, at your
Atlanta office?
"Mr. LiTTLEJOHN. Considerable.
"Senator LaFollette. How many Communists did you find?
"Mr. LiTTLEJOHN. I don't believe we found any.
"Raising the 'red' scare is a common practice with detective agencies, not
because of any profoimdly felt fear of radicalism among employers, but more
because the identification of labor with radicalism and sabotage neatly serves
their antilabor policy. Radicalism is more opprobrious than labor unionism;
therefore, the employer opposed to unions is more than anxious to plead his
cause in public by stigmatizing all unions as radical. This type of reasoning
places an initial handicap on the organizing campaigns of unions from which
only the hardiest can survive" * * * (p. 10 of same report).
1 See pt. 6, p. 204.3. Alfred Marshall, personnel director of the Chevrolet Motor Co.,
referring to the increase iu detective agency services as labor organization grew in their
plants, said, "Now the service grew from that time on. NRA came into the picture. The
strike situations arose. Plant detection became quite a problem. Union activities became
quite a problem. Collective bargaining came into the picture. We went into the collective
bargaining ourselves, signed the NRA. our company did, went into the NRA, formed the
bargaining agencies in our plant, and It was a natural growth. There was a very natural
growth for those services (p. 9, of same report).
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 447
As I have said, enactment of the Wagner Act did much to eliminate labor
espionage, but it is not yet dead in America. The Senate Labor Committee, in
1950, published a report on labor-management relations in the east coast oil
tanker industry (Rept. No. 82, 82d Cong.). According to this report, the Cities
Service maritime division employed 200 labor spies to keep under surveillance
a fleet employing only 470 men (p. 10). The late Senator Taft had this to say
about it : "I condemn the action of the marine division of this subsidiary of
the Cities Service Corp., first in attempting to defeat the efforts of its employees
to organize, and second in various other unfair labor practices in which it in-
dulged, and I condemn these as strongly as do the majority members of the
committee" (p. 21).
I think that is a fair summation of the attitude of decent people toward labor
espionage. I don't believe any decent citizen would like to return to the reign
of terror which labor espionage created prior to the Wagner Act. I do not
believe it is intended by the Butler bill to reinaugurate a regime of labor
espionage.
But, Mr. Chairman, anyone having personal knowledge of the labor move-
ment will know, simply by reading its provisions, that if the Butler bill became
law it would open the doors to all the evils of labor spying.
Let me illustrate what I mean. Under the Butler bill, an antilabor employer —
and there are still some in the United States — could infiltrate the union with
labor spies. They would report chance statements, casual remarks, statements
made in jest or in anger, and it would be an easy job to make of this issue of
hearsay a plausible charge against the union. An administrative investigation
may indicate that a hearing is desirable. The Board would issue its complaint
and simultaneously suspend the life of the union. The antilabor employer has
achieved his goal. And under the bill, it would not be necessary to prove or
even charge anything against the ofllcers of the union. The labor spy would
have only to say that a nonofficer dominated the union, and that he had made
a subversive remark. That would suflJce, it seems to me, under the Butler bill,
to justify the Board in issuing a complaint and ordering a hearing.
It has always been my understanding that the fundamental principle of Anglo-
American criminal law is that every man is innocent until he is proved guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Our civil rights could not exist if this principle
were abrogated. It is this principle which has protected us for centuries against
the whims and caprices of power-drunk tyrants who claimed divine right to
Imprison at will. But so far as labor unions are concerned, the Butler bill would
be a partial abrogation. Persons charged with the most heinous crimes may
be released on bail, and are thereafter free to exercise their rights until they
have been convicted by evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and have exhausted
their rights to appeal. But under the Butler bill, a labor union would be con-
victed first and tried afterward.
Mr. Chairman, I am an American, a Catholic of Irish parents. I have fought
communism all my adult life, and will continue to do so. I believe I have a little
more experience with communism in the labor movement than most legislators.
And I most solemnly declare that, in my opinion, enactment of the Butler bill
would encourage the spread of communism in the labor movement.
American Federation of Labor,
Washington 1, D. C, March 11, 1954.
Hon. John M. Butler,
Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Bxttler : With further reference to my letter of February 23, I
am enclosing herewith a statement in regard to S. 1606, S. 1254, and S. 23, pre-
pared at my request by our general counsel for submission to the Internal
Security Subcommittee of the United States Senate having such bills under
consideration.
On behalf of the American Federation of I-^bor I approve and adopt the views
expressed therein.
Very truly yours,
George Meant,
President, American Federation of Labor.
448 SUBVERSIVE rtsTFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Statement Sttbmitted on Behalf of the American Federation of Labor in
Regard to S. 1606, S. 1254, and S. 23, by Woll, Glenn & Thatcher, General
Counsel
First I wish to thank the members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to
submit this statement on behalf of the American Federation of Labor setting
forth its position and objections to S. lOOG, introduced by Senator Butler of
Maryland, S. 1254, introduced by Senator Goklwater, and S. 23, introduced by
Senator McCarran, all of which pertain to internal security. Two of these bills —
S. 1606 and S. 23 — propose amendments to the Internal Security Act of 1950,
whereas the third bill — S. 1254 — deals with the same subject matter by an inde-
pendent measure.
All of these proposals must be considered in relation to the present Internal
Security Act of 1950 which applies generally to all persons and organizations
therein broadly defined as including "an organization, corporation, company,
partnership, association, trust, foundation, or fund: and includes a group of
persons, whether or not incorporated, permanently or temporarily associated
together for joint action or any suliject or subjects." Obviously, the act applies
to labor organizations as well as others.
The proposed bills would single out labor organizations and their oflScers for
the application of special provisions relating only to them. It is our view that
such special treatment and provisions are unwarranted and unnecessary and may
result in persecution and undue interference with the efforts of labor organiza-
tions to adequately represent employees through collective-bargaining pro-
cedures. The American Federation of Labor has for many years been in the fore-
front in its efforts to prevent the spread of communism and Communist influ-
ences in this country and overseas and it and other labor organizations have
been active in opposing Communists. While unalterably opposed to commvm-
ism and Communist influence wherever they may be found, it is neverthele«!s
anxious that the legitimate interests of employees and their i-epresentatives be
protected.
S. 1606. introduced by Senator Butler, proposes to add four new sections fsecs.
117-120) to the Internal Security Act of 1950. augmenting the duties of the
Subversive Activities Control Board created by that act.
That bill provides that whenever it is charged that any labor organization
is "substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by any individual or indi-
viduals (whether officers of such labor organization or not) who are or ever
have been a member or members of the Communist Party or of any Communist-
action organization or Communist-front organization" or who have aided, sup-
ported, or contributed to or furthered the activities of such organizations or any
other totalitarian dictatorship, the Subversive Activities Control Board must
investigate such charge. If the Board believes such charge has merit, it must
issue a complaint against such labor organization together with notice of hear-
ing on the complaint. At the same time, the Board must serve on the National
Labor Relations Board and its General Counsel copies of the complaint and
notice of hearing-, together with an intermediate susi>ension order makinc the
labor organization ineligible to act as eKclusive bargaining agent and stripping
it of all procedural and substantive benefits under the Labor-Management Re-
lations Act.
Provision is made for hearings by the Subversive Activities Control Board
in accordance with procedure established under the Subversive Activities Con-
trol Act of 10.50. After such hearing, if the Board sustains the charges it must
then make the intermediate suspension order i>ermanent.
The bill further provides that disqualification of a labor organization under a
suspension order shall not make void or voidable any collective-bargaining con-
tract previously executed between that organization and any employer, insofar
as such contract bestows any rights or benefits upon either the employees or the
employer.
The National Labor Relations Board is authorized to direct an election to
select a successor exclusive bargaining agent without regard to the present Taft-
Hartley Act limitation that no such election may be held within 12 montbs after
a prior valid election.
Any party aggrieved by a "final" suspension order may appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals which may affirm or set aside the order. The findings
of fact of the Subversive Activities Control Board "if supported by the prei>on-
derance of evidence" are conclusive. If the United States Court of Appeals sets
aside the suspension order, its decree may be reviewed by the Supreme Court
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 449
upon certiorari; however, the order remains in full force and effect pending
such review. , .^ v. ^i ^ v.
Under the provisions of this bill it appears that a charge could be filed by any
employer or other person in the course of a labor dispute or otherwise alleging
that a labor organization is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by
any individual or individuals who are or ever have been a member of the Com-
munist Party or Communist action or front organization. The Subversive Activ-
ities Control Board would then be required to investigate the charge and such
investigation alone might seriously damage and interfere with the efforts of the
organization to represent the employees involved. If the Board believed that
the organization was substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by anyone
who had ever been a member of the Communist Party or any Communist-action
or Communist-front organization, the Board could issue a complaint and im-
mediately deprive the organization of the right to exclusively represent the
employees. Such action would immediately disrupt efforts of the employees to
obtain wage increases and other improvements in the conditions of their em-
ployment. This would be true even though it might finally be determined that
such charges were not sustained by the facts involved. The dangers to employ-
ees, esi>ecially when engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations or in a dispute
with their employers under the provisions of this bill, are obvious ; the bill would
open the door to abuse by employers.
S. 1254, introduced by Senator Goldwater, is the most comprehensive of the
three bills imder consideration. It is the most detailed and complex, consisting
of 27 pages containing 10 lengthy sections and numerous subsections.
In general the bill provides, among other things, that whenever the Attorney
General has reason to believe that any labor organization or individual represent-
ing or claiming to represent employees is a Communist labor representative, he
shall file a petition with the Subversive Activities Control Board seeking an order
of the Board to carry out the purposes of the act. The bill details at great length
the conditions under which such persons and organizations (including parent
labor organizations) shall be deemed Communist labor representatives.
The parties charged in the petition of the Attorney General shall be notified
and given a hearing before the Board or its agents appointed for that purpose.
In this connection the Board is authorized to establish a labor panel to be made
up of retired members of the Federal judiciary and may direct that such hearing
be held before a subpanel of such labor panel. Such subpanel may be authorized
either to issue a final order on the petition or only to make recommendations to
the Board.
The Board may, by a preponderance of the evidence, find that any individual
or organization is a Communist labor representative. It may order the removal
from office or dismissal of any officer or emploj'ee of a labor organization ; order
the disaffiliation of such organization from any other organization found to be a
Communist labor representative, and make other orders which in the Board's
opinion will effectuate the public policy. The Board shall require a labor or-
ganization found to be a Communist labor representative to cease acting as a rep-
resentative of employees, to cease the collection of dues and to cease any strike
activity. The authority of the Board to make orders is not limited exclusively
to the orders herein set forth.
In the processing of charges priority shall be given to any case where produc-
tion or delivery of goods or materials to any department of the United States Gov-
ernment is involved, provided an interruption may be injurious to the security or
defense of the United States.
While an order of the Board is in effect, the individual or labor organization
against whom the order is made shall lose its status and rights as a representative
of employees under the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, the re-
straints on injunctions under the Norris-LaGuardia Act are removed as well as
the protections of the Clayton Act.
Any party aggrieved by an order of the Board may within 10 days file objections
with the Board whereupon the Board shall petition the United States Court of
Appeals for enforcement of the same, and the court may enforce, modify, or set
aside the order. Further review may be sought in the Supreme Court. Severe
penalties, including fines and imprisonment, are provided for violation of various
provisions of the act.
Provisions of the National Labor Relations Act requiring the filling of non-
Communist affidavits are repealed and the National Labor Relations Board is
authorized to hold elections upon the request of 20 percent of the employees of
a bargaining unit represented by an organization against which a proceeding
is commenced under the act.
450 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The above constitutes a most limited outline of the principal proposals con-
tained in this bill. Taken in its entirety, it is unduly complex and vague. It
readily lends itself to abiise and endangers the interests of workers who may be
engaged in collective bargaining or involved in a dispute with employers. Under
it employees may be stripped of representation and subjected to injunctions
when effective representation is most needed.
In summary, the American Federation of Labor is opposed to S. 1606 and
S. 12o4 for the reason that such measures would subject employees and their
collective bargaining representatives to dangerous provisions of law not gener-
ally applicable to employers and other groups and citizens. Such provisions
would, we believe, endanger the legitimate rights and operations of labor organi-
zations and at times would divest employees and their representatives of the
rights and privileges provided by the National Labor Relations Act and other
statutes needed for their protection. We therefore respectfully urge the defeat
of these measures.
S. 23, introduced by Senator McCarran, is the most limited in scope of the
proposals under consideration. It asserts that labor organizations are at times
infiltrated by members of Communist organizations and fronts whose activ-
ities disrupt normal labor relations and embarrass the choice of loyal citi-
zens in affiliating with labor organizations. It would amend subsection 5 (a)
(1) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 to make it unlawful for
any member of a Communist organization, with knowledge that such organiza-
tion is registered, to hold any office or employment with a labor organization.
The bill further provides that section 5 of the act be amended by adding the
following subsection :
"(d) Nothing in this Act or any other statute of the United States shall pre-
clude any employer from discharging without liability any employee who volun-
tarily continues as a member of an organization duly designated by the Attorney
General of the United States as subversive, or who has actively concealed his
membership in such an organization, or who has refused to state to a duly
constituted congressional legislative committee whether or not he is or has
knowingly or willingly been a member of such an organization."
This bill constitutes an intrusion into the right of labor organizations to
choose their own officers. It is an intrusion into the internal affairs of such
organizations which may be extended and enlarged if the principle is once
established. Its provisions are limited to labor organizations. They do not
apply for example to other organizations or to business corporations even when
engaged in producing military supplies for the Government.
The bill would penalize the exercise of constitutional rights by withdrawing
protection against unlawful discharge from employees exercising such rights
which appears to be unsound in principle.
While we have not attempted to point out every detailed objection to the pro-
visions of the bills referred to, we are nevertheless opposed to them for the
reasons set forth herein.
Statement of the CIO Executive Board on the Btjtler-Goldwater-Vemje Bills
(Meeting of March 22-23, 1954)
The Congress of Industrial Organizations has always been opposed to com-
munism or any other form of totalitarianism. We have always resisted, and
will always resist in the future, any efforts by the Communist Party or any other
totalitarian group to infiltrate the American trade-union movement.
The preamble of the constitution of the CIO points out that "we of the CIO
are the sons and daughters of ancestors who came to America to escape absolut-
ism in government, bigotry in religion, and economic exploitation * * * We
oppose all those who would violate this American emphasis of respect for human
dignity, all those who would use power to exploit the people in the interest of
alien loyalties."
Our attitude about communism has been expressed by scores and hundreds of
leaders of the CIO. The late Philip Murray, president of the CIO from 1940
until his death in 1952, voiced this philosophy :
"The Communist program for American labor is a program of destruction * ♦ *
We are committed to the broadening of our democratic stnicture, not to its de-
struction. We are committed to orderly and constructive progress by labor in
America ; we are not and never will be committed to a policy that makes our
movement the slave of a dictatorial state apparatus."
SUBVERSIVE INTLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 451
Walter P. Reuther, president of the CJongress of Industrial Organizations, has
pointed out :
"The struggle between democracy and communism, between freedom and
tyranny, is essentially a struggle for men's minds, their hearts, and their loyalty ;
and it can be won only in terms of demonstrating which way of life offers the best
hope of satisfying man's needs and aspirations * * *
"We must nail the Communist lie that man need trade freedom for bread, by
proving that bread and freedom are compatible, and that the world that we are
working to build will enable man to satisfy his economic and material needs
within an ever-broadening framework of political and spiritual freedom."
The CIO has not been content merely to voice anti-Communist phrases. In
1949, the convention of the CIO, voting by an overwhelming majority, adopted
procedures which led to the expulsion of 11 Communist-dominated unions from
the CIO. In our reports expelling those unions, we expressed the conviction that
the vast majority of the members of those unions were clearly not sympathetic
to communism, but that a small clique had gained control of those 11 trade
unions.
The proof that our conviction on this matter was sound, and that the member-
ship of those trade unions is completely loyal to the best democratic ideals of
America, is indicated by the fact that almost three-fourths of the nearly 1 million
members who belonged to the 11 expelled unions, have thrown off the yoke of
their Communist organizations and their Communist leaders, and have returned
to the CIO family of democratic trade unions.
The constitution of the CIO is explicit on the subject of Communist-dominated
unions. For instance, section 4, article 4, of our constitution provides: "No
Individual shall be eligible to serve either as an officer or as a member of the
executive board who is a member of the Communist Party, any Fascist organi-
zation, or other totalitarian movement, or who consistently pursues policies
and activities directed toward the achievement of the program or the purposes
of the Communist Party, any Fascist organization, or other totalitarian move-
ment, rather than the objectives and policies set forth in the constitution of the
CIO."
Section 10, article 6, of the CIO constitution gives the CIO executive board the
power to expel or take other appropriate action against any CIO affiliate "the
policies and activities of which are consistently directed toward the achieve-
ment of the program or the purposes of the Communist Party, any Fascist
organization, or other totalitarian movement rather than the objectives and
policies set forth in the constitution of the CIO."
These constitutional provisions are a demonstration of the belief of all truly
democratic trade unionists in the United States of America that the aims and
aspirations of the Communist Party are clearly incompatible with those of the
free and democratic trade-union movement.
We recognize that eternal vigilance must be exerted by organized labor as
well as by every other branch of our national society to resist infiltration by
the Communist Party or its followers. The CIO executive board reaffirms its
determination to practice strict enforcement of these and other sections of its
constitution and bylaws.
It should also be pointed out that almost all CIO unions have adopted constitu-
tional provisions which bar Communists or Fascists from holding office in
those organizations. These are not dead-letter provisions. These provisions, to-
gether with the alertness and determination of the membership, have prevented
Communists from gaining positions of influence in the trade unions of the CIO.
We are confident that these provisions and the alertness and determination
of the membership will keep the Communists out in the future.
The unions which were expelled from the CIO and which remain under Com-
munist domination have, by the efforts of the CIO, been exposed, discredited,
weakened, and in some cases, wiped out. A few of them continue to exist only
because their membership is still confused or because of the nari'ow self-interest
of unscrupulous employers, who are only too happy to deal with unions too weak
to be militant. The CIO pledges that it will continue its fight against these
Communist remnants until the last Communist agent is driven out of the trade-
union movement and until the workers whose organizations the Communists
once captured are given an opportunity to achieve genuine and honest trade-
union representation.
While any Communist Party control of any trade union is to be deplored and
combated, Americans must see this problem in proper perspective. The unions
that the Communists control are weak. Their members in overwhelming pro-
452 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
portion are patriotic American citizens whose allegiance is to the trade unions
rather than to its Communist officers.
That small number of Communist-led unions, whose strength is declining daily,
is hemmed in by a large group of democratic unions which wage a constant
educational campaign to show the members of the Communist organizations their
mistake of continued affiliation with Communist-led unions. We are confident
that this educational campaign will continue to be effective and successful.
One factor, however, that would almost certainly not help this successful
attrition process among the Communist-dominated unions would be passage by
the Congress of ill-considered legislation to deal with the subject. As democratic
trade unionists wholeheartedly pledged to our American form of democracy, we
are convinced that Government regulation of trade unions, as proposed in the
Butler, Goldwater, and Velde bills, would be a cure worse than the disease itself.
The essence of all these proposals is for some Government agency to screen
unions to decide whether they are Communist dominated, and to forbid the
continued operation of unions found to be so dominated. That is the essential
proposal embodied in the Goldwater bill, the Butler bill, and the Velde bill. They
differ only in details.
In our view, this is a most drastic and dangerous scheme. Two years ago,
our late president, Philip Murray, in a letter to Senator Humphrey on this
subject, declared "as a basic philosophy, we in the CIO believe that the right
of American workers to choose their own collective-bargaining representatives
is as fundamental to our democratic waj' of life as the right to speak, to worship,
and to assemble freely with one's fellow men. Encroachments upon this funda-
mental right to choose collective-bargaining representatives should never be
undertaken excent after a showing that such encroachments are vitally necessary
to our national safety."
The bills now before Congress would not merely encroach upon the rights
of workers to choose their own unions ; they would give the Government the
power of life and death over all unions. Let us make no mistake about it : ail
of these bills propose Government licensing of trade unions. We do not believe
that a free trade-union movement can exist under Government licensing of unions
any more than political freedom can exist under governmental licensing of
political parties.
Why has the Communist Party been so signally unsuccessful in gaining strength
in the American labor movement?
In large part, because our democratic unions are independent of all outside
control — including that of Government — and our members know and appreciate
this. Working as part and parcel of our democratic system, our unions have
been militant when militancy has been needed, and they have been constantly
effective. Our unions have repaid many times the faitli which the workers have
invested in them. By contributing to the rise in America's living standards, our
unions have proven themselves to be a continuous educational process — a process
that explains to all the people that the American economy is flexible and capable
of needed adjustments, and that our political society permits necessary change
by democratic methods.
No controlled labor organization in any Communist or Fascist nation has been
able to even come close to matching the record of our free labor movement. No
labor front, whether its title be Communist or Fascist, has ever won the whole-
hearted allegiance of its members as the democratic unions of America have won
the support of American workers. The reason is that these labor fronts are not
labor unions in fact. They have no independence; they are arms of their govern-
ments. They are the proof that inherent in these legislative proposals is the
danger that the government licensing authority will use its power of life and
death over the unions to destroy or weaken any union regarded with disapproba-
tion by the government in ])Ower. Even if this power were never abused, its bare
existence would impair the independence and vitality of trade unions. They
would not boldly and freely serve as vehicles to implement the views of their
membership if any misstep could lead to extinction.
To sacrifice the dividends of freedom now enjoyed by the members of our
unions for the very grave disadvantages of Government control and regulation
would be as illogical as it is unnecessary. To the same degree, it would be a
mighty victor.v in the Communist efforts to discredit free labor in America and
the validity of our American democratic institutions. The masters of the inter-
national Communist conspiracy, acting from the standpoint of long-range strat*
egy, would gladly exchange control of a few insignificant and weak Communist-
led unions for Government shackling of our whole free trade-union movement, just
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 453
as they welcome any setback to America's healthy economy and expanding
democracy.
To wreck, through Government regulation, the whole edifice of American trade-
union democracy in order to try to deal with the control of a tiny handful of
Communists in trade unions, is unreasoning. Democracy and free trade union-
Ism are inseparably woven together in the fabric of our free society and one is
not possible without the other.
What, then, can we rely upon to protect America from Communist infiltration
in the labor movement?
First of all, we can rely upon the constant patriotism of workers and the over-
whelming majority of their trade-union leaders.
Second, we can rely upon the effectiveness of free democratic labor unions
to bring about the redress of economic grievances, thereby strengthening the
entire society — and removing the basis for Communist propaganda and possible
Communist successes.
Third, we can rely upon necessary security measures to prevent espionage,
sabotage, or treason. If present measures prove inadequate, they can and
should be strengthened.
Fourth, we can rely upon the commonsense vigilance of workers and their
trade unions to resist Communist infiltration of their labor organizations.
These factors upon which we rely are the sturdy foundation stones of our
entire democracy. If we cannot rely upon them, we can never be secure — for
they are basic to our American way of life. In adopting legislation to regulate
trade unions, even for the worthy purpose of fighting communism, we are weak-
ening one of the all-important bases of the democracy from which all of us
derive our spiritual and moral and economic strength.
Accordingly, we voice our strong opposition to the enactment of these bills.
Senator Butler, The meeting is adjourned.
(Thereupon, the meeting recessed at 10: 30 a. m. subject to call, on
Thursday, March 25, 1954.)
INDEX
Page
Abt, John 56
ACA, membership, 10,000 114
Act of October 16, 1918 (8 U. S. C. 137) 47
Adelmau, Meyer 16
Administrative Procedure Act 102
Admiral Corp., Chicago 427
Advertisement — International Union Mine, Mill and Smelter Worlters 169
Affidavits of non-Communist membership 37
AFL 176, 231, 245, 246, 255
AFL Commercial Telegraphers Union 114
AFL convention in Denver 21
AFL convention quote 231
i\FL Draftsmen Union 306
AFL Plumbers Union 306
AFL, preamble to constitution 359
Agricultural Workers Union 19, 20, 24
Agricultural Workers Union AFL 20
Albertson, William 3, 5, 42
Alien Registration Act of 1940 46, 48, 49
All American Cables & Radio, Inc 188
Allied Control Commission in Italy 188
Allis-Chalmers plant 127
Alter-Ehrlich assassination 28
Amalgamated . 15, 28
Amalgamated Clothing Workers 121
Amalgamated Clothing Worli;ers Bank, New York 28
American Cable & Radio Corp 188, 190, 191, 311, 361
American Civil Liberties Union 3
American Communications Association (ACA) 114,116,119,188-
192, 274, 320-322, 324, 340, 345-347, 352-353, 361-363, 370-372, 374
American Communists To Defend and Support the Soviet Union 48
American Federation of Labor (AFL) 1,6,14,
16, 17. 19-28, 90, 91, 93-95, 111, 112, 114, 115, 118, 119, 123, 124, 176,
179, 180, 186, 190, 201. 284, 306, 359, 370, 427.
American Federation of Labor statement submitted by Wall, Glenn, and
Thatcher, general counsel, re S. 1606, S. 1254, and S. 23 448^50
American Radio Association. CIO 116
American Radio Telegraphists Association 114
American Seating Co 35,38
American Smelting & Refining Co 198,209
American Telephone & Telegi-aph Co 344
Amherst College 7
Antell. Harold 41, 42
Anti-Communist affidavits 36
Anti-Communist League in Pittsburgh 272
Atlantic Cable 115, 320
Atomic Energy Commission 145,147,149,253,254
Attorney General quote on C. P. program 48
Attorney General Tom Clark 37, 38
Auto Workers CIO 35
Auto Workers Local 85,36
Auto Workers Union 35
455
456 INDEX
B
Page
Bader, George E 145, 426
Bader, George E., statement 170, 172
Baker, Jacob 20
Bargained for 40.000 out of 240,000 employees 315
Bargaining rights UE for over 200,000 111
Bargaining riglits UE for over 300,000 232
Baron, Sam 16
Barron, William J 295, 296, 304, 307, 309, 311-314
Behn, Sosthenes 362
Beirne, Joseph A., president of Communications Workers of America, CIO
re S1606 442-447
Benjamin, Herbert 13
Bill of Rights 344, 348, 384, 409, 418-420, 424, 437
Bittner, Van A : 33
Blackbird, Hailey Mine 201
Blackwell, Jack 201, 202
Blackwell, Jack, radio speech 200, 202-207
Blade (document) 285
Bliss, Willard 270, 271
Board of War Communications Order 25-C 370
Borah, Senator William E 56
Boston E>\^ening American tribute 373
Bott-Mahon letter, December 22, 1953 280
Boulware's prepared statement 288-294
Bridges, Harry 19, 27, 37, 88, 92, 114, 117-120, 126, 132, 241, 274
Bridges labor organization membership claim 100,000 118
British Labor Party government 5
Broadcast, Jack Blackwell 199, 200, 202, 207
Bromsen, Archibald II9
Brophy, John 16, 17, 19-21, 24r-25
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 17
Browder, Earl 128
Brown, Gus 39, 40, 42, 122
Bryson, Hugh 117, 118, 132
Budenz, Louis 21
Bulter-Heberton letter 172
Bunker Hill 198
Burnham, James 13
Burrows, George 42
Business Week (publication) 15
Butler bill 60, 128, 130, 131, 133,
181, 229, 232, 236, 239, 245, 279, 285, 311, 324, 342, 344, 346, 357, 358
Butler-Buddeke letter, March 5, 1954 439
Butler-Denham letter 9g
Butler-Goldwater-Velde bills — Statement of CIO Executive Board (meet-
ing, March 22-23), 1954 450-453
Butler Law Crushes Local, Other Locals Gear for Big Fight 285
BWC Order 25-C 370
Cables 115
Campbell, Alex 91, 92
Canada I^abor Relations Board 155
Canada Seamen's Union I55
Carey, James B 28, 52, 97, 110, 131, 268, 271, 296, 405
Carlisle Lumber Co 89
Carpenters Union, AFL 23
Case No. 18-RC-1570, NLRB 278, 285
Challenge of Youth (publication) 8
Chambers, Whittaker 56
Chappell, Winifred 4
Chemical Workers of the AFL 12
Chicago convention of CIO Furniture Workers Union 36
Chicago Daily News 157
INDEX 457
Page
Chicago Federation of Labor 16
Chicago Hera Id- American 157
Chicago May Day Massacre 15
Chicago Workers Committees on Unemployment 11, 15, 44
Christoffel, Harold 9. 10
Civil Liberties Union 4
Civil Rights Congress, New York 256
Civil rights organizations 96
Clark 111
Clark, John 53, 151, 153
Clark, Tom 37
Clayton Act 65, 162, 306
Cleveland convention, 1946, oflScial program quote 58
Clott, Herman 53
Coeur d'Alene district (Wallace, Kellogg, and Mullan) 198, 200, 201, 434
Collins, Henry H 56
Colonial Dames 18
Columbia University Farmer 18
Commencement of proceedings 66
Commercial Cable Co 188
Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL 114, 116
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 51, 60, 157, 269
Communications :
Butler-Buddeke, March 5, 1954 439
Butler-Miller, March 3, 1954 440
Butler-Meany, March 11, 1954 447
Communications Workers of America, CIO — Statement of Joseph A.
Bifeirne, re S. 1606 442-447
Communist (and/or Communists) 3-46,
48, 50-52, 55-60, 64, 66. 67, 88-90, 93, 94, 96, 97, 100, 101, 104, 106,
110-114, 117-129, 132, 133, 149, 150, 152-154, 158, 160, 102, 176-186,
189, 192-196, 198, 208, 209, 213, 214, 223-226, 228-230, 232-234,
238-252, 255-257, 259, 261-268, 270, 271, 273, 276-279, 281, 285,
294-296, 298-301, 304-309, 312, 313, 320-324, 338, 340, 341, 343-347,
349-356, 359, 361, 362, 363, 368-370, 375. 385, 387, 390, 391, 393, 394,
399, 400-403, 404-408, 419-426, 431, 433, 436-438.
Communist action organizations 47,
385, 386, 388-390, 393, 395-397, 401-402, 406
Communist affidavits 315
Commimist cause 60
Communist-dominated (and/or controlled) union 22,
38, 41, 51, 52, 56, 65, 101, 103, 105, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 122-132,
146, 148-150, 152, 154, 155-159, 162, 176-181, 183, 186, 187, 189,
190. 192, 194, 195. 208. 223. 269, 272, 277. 279. 282-284, 295-302,
304, 306-312, 315, 321, 339, 355, 384, 385, 386, 388, 391, 394, 396, 397,
399, 405, 433.
Communist espionage agent 38
Communist-front organization 27,
47, 239, 270, 271, 388-391, 393, 395-397, 402, 404, 406
Communist goon-squad leaders 38
Communist Party 4, 6, 11, 13,
15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 27, 30, 36, 40, 41, 43, 46-48, 52, 56, 58, 88-94, 110,
111. 113 114 116 119, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130-133, 149, 152, 153,
155, 161, 177-186, 188, 190, 194, 195, 208. 213. 225-227, 230, 234,
235, 240, 242-244, 248, 250, 256, 258-267, 270-273, 276, 300, 307, 308,
312, 313, 321-324. 339-341, 344, 356. 358, 359, 365, 367, 369, 370, 391,
392, 394, 395, 400-402, 405, 408, 418, 419, 422, 426, 430, 433, 435-i38
Communist press 6
Conclusion , 70
CIO 14-16, 18-21, 24-39, 41, 43, 51, 52, 56,
57. 64. 90-95, 110^125, 127, 128, 147, 152, 176, 178, 183, 188-190, 196,
201, 208, 212, 213, 223, 227, 228, 239, 245, 246, 254, 259, 268, 269, 271,
273, 277, 281, 284, 285, 296, 299, 300, 306, 353, 359, 370, 371, 404, 405
CIO-AFL, membership 15 or 16 million together 284
CIO convention record 269
43903—54 30
458 INDEX
Page
CIO expels 11 of its 41 international unions 51
CIO expels Mine, Mill, and Smelter Union 52
CIO findings — Expulsion of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers 57
CIO policy pamphlet, Local 1154, UE-CIO circulated by employees,
Stewart-Warner, excerpts 178, 179
CIO textile workers 4
Congressional guides 68
Conner, William 178
Cosmopolitan magazine of 1952 208
Council for Studio Unions 89, 90
Countryman, Prof. Vern 436
Countryman, Vern, statement 378-384, 418, 420, 421
Coyle 17
Criminal Code, section 35-A 194
Criminal law, section 1001 of title 18 430
Crypto-Socialist 422
Curran, Joe 28, 121, 125
Cvetic, Matt - 256, 263
Czechoslovakia 162
D
Daily Worker 6, 21, 26, 41, 120-121, 123, 278
DAR 2,18
Darling, Mike 427
Darrow, Clarence 56
DAV 199
Davis, Prof. Horace B 4
Davis, Leon 120, 121
Day Mines 198
Dear Comrade letter, February 8, 1946 209, 210
DeCaux, Len 16, 17
DeCicco, Michael 43, 122
DeClaire: Clark letter 151,172
DeClaire, Edward 151
Denham, Robert N 37, 38
Dennis, Eugene 58
Dennis opinion 419, 420
Detention Review Board 48
Detroit Local 600 35
Dies, Martin. 239
Dining Car Workers Union - 119
District Council 3 285
District 50 organization 38
District 65 121
Dolan, Graham 53
Dollfuss 11
Donaldson, Walter G 42
Dowds-Dennis case 162, 315
DPOWA 119-121, 274
DPOWA, membership 50,000 to 60,000 120
Drug Clerks Local 120
Drummond 434
Dubinsky, David 123
Dues, $750,000 going to Communist apparatus 304
Dunne Bros., Minneapolis 14
Dunne, Judge, Cook County 156, 157, 162
Durkin, James 120
E
Eckert 57,58
Editorial, New York Times, Mr. McLeod's demotion 358
Effect of a complaint 67
Effective date of Board's determination in relations to rights of appeal 69
Ehrlich 28
Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D., tribute 372
Electrical Workers Local Union 1031 153
INDEX 459
Fan
11 Communist leaders 48
11 unions and dates of expulsion by CIO 51
The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, November 2, 1949.
The United Farm Equipment Workers, November 2, 1949.
Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, February 15, 1950.
United Ofl3ce and Professional Workers, February 15, 1950.
United Public Workers, February 15, 1950.
Food, Tobacco, and Agricultural Workers, February 15, 1950.
American Communications Association, June 15, 1950.
International Fur and Leather Workers Union, June 15, 1950.
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, August 29,
1950.
Marine Cooks and Stewards, August 29, 1950.
International Fishermen and Allied Workers, August 29, 1950.
Ellis Island 112
Emergency Civil Liberties Committee 384
Emergency Detention Act of 1950 47, 314
Emspack, Julius 110, 112, 131, 213, 232, 242, 243, 247, 249, 256, 261, 266, 267, 274
Excerpts, statement 178-179
Exhibit E of committee print of Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 269
Exhibit No. I — Travis statement on signing Taft-Hartley aflBdavit printed
in the Union, August 15, 1949 issue 53-55
Exhibit No. II — Unions Barring Communists 61
Exhibit No. Ill— S. 1254 71, 137-144
Exhibit No. IV — Memorandum in support of suggested changes in S. 1254_ 71-79
Exhibit No. V— An analysis of the contention that S. 1254 and H. R. 3993
constitute thought-control legislations 79-84
Expulsions of 11 CIO unions 51
European unions 28
F
Falk Foundation 4
Fanelli, George M. (D. A.) 42
Federal Mining Co 209
Federal Register 396-398
Federal unions 21
Fifth amendment 52,
56, 128, 162, 189, 224-225, 233, 234, 236, 256-258, 262, 263, 270, 295,
298, 305, 312, 321, 323, 324, 340, 344, 350, 351, 436.
Fink, Col. S. P., tribute 373
Finnish Social Democratic Federation 4
First amendment 324, 350, 393, 402, 409, 420, 436
Fitzgerald, Albert J 59, 110
Fitzgerald statement 214-222
Flanagan, Thomas 271
Flaxer, Abram 17, 91, 113, 127, 274
Fly, James L., tribute 373
Foner, Moe 120
Food, Agriculture and Allied Workers 120
Food and Agricultural Workers Organization 20
Ford Local 600, membership, ,50,000 35
Foreign Agent Registration Act 399, 402, 418
Foreman, Clark 384
Foster, William Z 17, 22, 58
Franco, Francisco 362
Frantz, Laurent B., article 354
Fulford, Fred 40, 42, 43
Fur and Leather Workers 111, 113, 114
Fur and Leather Workers, members, 60,000 to 70,000 113
Furniture industry 22, 23
Furniture Manufacturer's Association 29
Furniture Union 25
Furnitui'e Woodworkers Union 23, 26
Furniture Workers Industrial Union 22, 23
Furniture Workers Union 20-22, 26, 32-38
Fur Workers 91, 112, 114
Fur Workers Industrial Union 111
460 INDEX
G
Page
Gallagher, Jack, author of "Hello Travis" letter 210-211
Gardner, Fred 2G6
General Counsel Denham 37,38
General Electric Co. statement 257
General Electric, one-sixth or 40,000 employees bargained for by UE__ 302, 304
General Electric plant 111,
331, 186, 253, 254, 256, 257, 262, 265, 266, 268, 296, 301, 302,
305, 306, 312, 315, 421.
German Democratic Society 8
Getreu-Mahon letter, February 19, 1954 282
Gift of $30,000 427
Gilbert, William 40
Gold, Ben 92, 111-113
Golden, Clinton 33, 34
Goldsborough, Judge 156
Goldwater bill 128-
131, 162, 181-182, 187, 229, 232, 236, 239, 245, 308, 311, 312,
314, 315, 324, 342, 344, 346, 360.
Goldwater bill, page 4 quote 24.5, 246
Goldwater-Rhodes bill 223
Gough, J. Steele 4
Green, Gil 58
Green, president, AFL 28
H
Hacker, Carl 8
Hailey, Blackbird Mine 201
Hall, Everard 178
Hall, Florence 177-179, 185
Halske-Nazi firm 362
Hamilton 162
Hansen, Rudolph 53
Hanson, Rudy 209
Harvard University 33, 34, 322
Harvester plant, Chicago 157
Haug, Fred 266
Hang, Mrs. Marie Reed 266
Haywood, Allan 39, 43
Haywood, Bill 56
H-Bomb for Unions, the Butler bill, by Laurent B. Frantz 354
Hearing procedure 67, 68
Hecla Mining Co 198
Held, Adolph 28
"Hello Travis" letter 210, 211
Helstein, Ralph 123
Henderson, Donald 18, 20, 120
Herron, Garfield 177, 185
Herzog, Mr 80
Herzog, former NLRB Chairman 278
Highland Park Manufacturing 94
Hilluian, Sidney 21, 24, 25, 28, 239
Hirschberg, Herbert Irving 266
Hiss, Alger 56, 127, 400
Hiss, Donald 56
Hitler 362, 371
Hochstad, .Tack 24, 26, 29, 37, 40, 122
Hoffman, Sol B 20-22.23-27,29-33,37,38
Holmgren 53
Hoover, J. Edgar, article 315-319
Hoover, J. Edgar, quote 240
Hoover J. Edgar, statement 176
Hopkins, Harry 11
Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, AFL 4, 8, 42, 119
House committee, quote 46
House Labor Committee 223
INDEX 461
Page
House Un-American Activities Committee 16, 46
H. R. 3993 59,79,384,406
H. R. 3993, S. 1254 (An Analysis of the Contention That S. 1254 and H. R.
3993 Constitute Thought-Control Legislation) 79-84
Humphrey committee 5-, 97
Hunt, Ruth l'^9
Hylaud, John 42
lAM 176, 185
IBEW i 176, 179, 180, 185, 186, 255, 427
Idaho — 30 mines and reduction plants 207
Illinois Workers Alliance (IWA) 11,44
ILU -41
Independent unions — three-hundred-odd 284
Independent unions, United States, 2,000 to 2,500 276, 284
Ingles, Maj. Gen. H. C, tribute 372
Internal Security Act of 1950 {see also Subversive Activities Control
Act of 1950) 46-48.65,96,102,104,132,
308, 313, 314, 343, 385, 386, 388, 390, 392, 394, 396, 399, 401, 405, 407
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 148, 151, 179
International Harvester 253
International Jewelry Workers Union, AFU 124
International Labor and Socialist Lyceum 4
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union 42, 123
International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union 117, 274, 349
International Telephone & Telegraph Corp 188,344,361-364
International Union of Electrical Workers, CIO 110
International Union of Mine Mill, and Smelter Workers 53,
64. 146, 169, 200, 201, 418, 425, 428, 438
International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, advertisement— 169
International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, statement on
bills 410-417
International Woodworkers of America 32, 39, 88
International Workers of the World, during World War No. 1 56
lonograph Keller units 146
Iron Curtain countries 126, 191
Iron Guard 362
lUE 131, 176, 257, 306
IWA 11, 44
IWW 89
Jackson, Mr. Justice 395
Jackson, Mr. Justice, opinion 162
Jackson Park branch. Socialist Party 10
Jefferson Schools of Social Science 56
Jencks, Clinton 53
Jewelry Workers Bulletin (Bugged 412) (publication) 124
Jewelry Workers Local No. 1 124
Jewish Daily Forward (publication) 9
Join the CIO and Build a Soviet America 239
Joseph, Jerome 213, 266
Judge Medina 48-50, 180
Jukebox setup 271, 272
Jurich 117
Kaplan, Louie and/or Luigi 38
Kehoe, Joseph 114, 116, 361
Keller units 145
Kelliher, John 177-180
Kennecott 53
Kersten committee 272
4G2 INDEX
Paea
Koral, Richard L 41
Kramer, Charles 56
Krzycki, Leo 15, 16
KWAL — Blackwell broadcast 207
Labor Board 35, 95, 98,
99, 102, 106, 114, 115, 118, 131-133, 194, 195, 281, 427, 428, 430
Labor-Management Relations Act 1947 101, 102, 230, 277, 278, 281
Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, points of ineffectiveness 65, 66, 101
Labor-Management Relations Act {see also Taft-Hartley Act) 281, 311-315
Labor Relations Act 283
LaFollette committee 239
Land, Adm. Emory S., tribute 373
Lane, Gertrude 42
Larson, Orville 53
Lasser, David 12-14, 27
Laurence, Charles 38
League for Industrial Democracy 3, 11
Leavenworth Prison 112
Legislative Correspondents Association 5
Lenin 272, 342
Lenin quote 272
Letter, Butler-Denham, April 2S, 1953 98
Letter, Dear Comrade — Executive Board Kellog Club, dated February 8,
1946 209, 210
Letter, DeClaire-Clark 151, 172
Letter, Travis-Gallagher, lone. Wash., April 19, 1945 210, 211
Letter, Waruer-Pinta 427
Letter, Wilson, Harvey, dated October 5, 1951, re Blackwell broadcast 199, 200
Letters :
Bott-Mahon, December 22, 1953 ; Mahon-Murdock, January 27, 1954_ 280, 281
Butler-Buddeke, March 5, 1954 439
Butler-Miller, March 3, 1954 440
Butler-Meany, March 11, 1954 447
Communist activities in mining areas 209-211
Getreu-Mahon, February 19, 1954 ; Mahon-Getreu, February 15, 1954 ;
Getreu-Mahon, February 11, 1954; Mahon-Getreu, December 9,
1954 282,283
Lewis 24-26, 239
Lewis, John L 15, 17, 19, 26, 38, 90, 91, 156, 311
I^iberal Club 3
Lincoln, Abraham, quote 357, 376
Litvinov 28
Livingston, David 121
Lloyd et al. (304 111.) 162
Local 1 124, 421
Local 14 at Wallace, Idaho 201,202,208
Localie 397
Local 18 at Kellogg, Idaho 201, 208
Local 76 at New York 39
Local 76 41
Lt)cal 100 421
Local 140 41, 42, 122
Local 506 271
Local 508 270
Local 576 41
Local 6(;0, Detroit 35
Local 758 418, 421, 425, 427, 428, 438
Local 1031, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 151, 179, 427
Local 1031, Electrical Workers 153
Local 1154, UE 177-179, 186
Local 1199, membership 6,000 120
Locomotive Engineers Journal (publication) 17
Lucci, Pietro 112
INDEX 463
M
Fast
Mackay 115
Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co 188
Madison Square Garden 11
Magliacano 24, 26, 37, 40
Magnuson Act 132
Mahon-Getreu letters (December 9, 1952, February 11, 1954, February 15,
1954) 282, 283
Mahon-Murdock letter (January 27, 1954) 280,281
Maizie 256
Management Bulletin No. 2, issued February 16, 1954, quote 257
Management-Labor Relations Act 36
Marine Cooks and Stewards Union, CIO 117, 118, 132
Marino, James Edward 266
Martin, Mike 15
Matles, James___ 91, 110, 131, 213, 228. 232,233,242, 243, 247, 249, 256, 261, 266, 267
Matsie 256
Marx, Karl 272, 342
Marxist line 46, 342
May Day massacre 15
Mazey, Emil 123
McAlpin, Hotel 29, 30
McCarran bill 128, 185, 229, 232, 236, 239, 312, 324, 342-344, 346, 360, 361, 398
McCarran, Senator 386, 398, 430, 437
McCormick Act of 1938 46
Mclnerney 92
Mclnerney questioned by McCarthy 234
McLeod's demotion 358
Mecca Temple 28
Medical Procurement Agency 145
Medina, Judge 48-50, 177, 179, 180
Mediterranean Advisory Commission 188
Members, UE, 600,000 110
Membership, ACA, 10,000 114
Membership, Bridges labor organization, claims 100,000 118
Membership, Ford Local 600, 50,000 35
Membership, Fur and Leather Workers 60,000 or 70,000 113
Membership, Local 1199, 6.000 120
Membership, MMSW (1946), 126.000 58
Membership of National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, 8,000 to
10,000 276
Membership of UE, Fitzgerald's statement, 300,000 273
Memorandum in support of suggested changes in S. 1254 71-79
Merrill, Lewis 18
Metal Workers Industrial Union 110
Metaline district 198, 201
Methodist Federation for Social Service 2 4
Mill, Saul 28
Million dollars a year UE takes out of pockets of workers? 304
Milwaukee Industrial Trade School 9
Milwaukee Journal, tribute 373
Mine, Mill, originally Western Federation of Miners grew up under CIO
to 100.000 111
Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers Union 52
56-59, 111, 146-148, 151-153, 156, 158-161, 176, 177, 201, 207-21o'
267, 418, 420, 424, 425, 430, 432, 434-437.
Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers Union expelled 52
Mine workers 284
Mintner, Bernard (Barney) 39,122
Mitchell, H. L 20, 24
Mooney-Billings case ' 3
Mooney, Tom 9
Morning mine at Mullan 198
Morris, George 41
Mountain Park Inn 33
464 INDEX
Pagt
Moyer 56
Mr. McLeod's Demotion, editorial, New York Times 358
Municipal Workers Union 20
Munitions Board 147
Murray, Pliil 28, 32-34, 36, 37, 43, 269, 342
Mussa 89i
Muster, Boris (and/or Morris Muster) 21,22,24,26-34.43
Myers, Blackie 125
N
Names of 11 unions and dates of expulsion 51
Nation, The (magazine) 6,7
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)__ 236,238,342,345,346,359,360
National Association of Manufacturers, statement of law department 440-442
Nationla Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers 276, 277, 285
National Executive Committee 278
National Furniture Workers Industrial Unions 22
National Independent Union Council 276,285,359
National Labor Relations Act (see also Taft-Hartley Act) ___ 96, 99, 102, 203, 311,
313, 315, 403, 427, 430
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 2,
34-37, 55, 56, 65, 85-87, 90, 96, 97, 99, 101, 104, 105, 114, 116, 129,
130, 131, 148, 153-156, 158, 162, 177, 17^183, 187, 190, 192, 194, 196,
213, 228, 2.30, 233, 245, 255, 256, 277-279, 281, 283-285, 295, 308,
311, 312, 336, 339, 374, 377, 402, 403, 405, 425, 427, 429-431, 433,
434 437.
National Labor Relations Board Case No. 18-R. C. 1570 278,285
National Maritime Union 118, 121, 125, 133
National Miners Unions 5,6
National Production Authority 147
National Workers Alliance 12
Nazi Bund 8
Needle-Trades Industrial Union 23
Nelson 256-2.58,2(33
Nelson, Eleanor 20, 127
Newark Star Ledger tribute 373
Newfoundland landing of Atlantic cable 115
New Union Press No. 412 124
New York Hotel and Restaurants Trades 42
New York .Journal-American tribute 373
New York Times 34
New York Times clipping, "Vandals in Furniture Factory 41, 42
New York World-Telegram tribute 373
Nixon, Russ 214, 225, 229-231, 233-234, 236-254, 256, 261, 267, 273, 275
Non-Communist affidavit 55, 65, 87, 117, 122, 179, 182, 183, 187,
189, 233, 234, 254, 267, 277, 279, 285, 286, 311, 420, 429, 430
Non-Communist membership 37
Nordholm, Mr. Alex G., tribute 372
Norris-LaGuardia Act 65, 155, 162, 163
North American Aviation plant 127
North Atlantic cable 115, 320
North Atlantic route 320
O
Ober law 308
O'Connor, Frank 39
Office Workers Union 91
O'Mahoney, Senator 366
OPA 33
Opportunity for corrective action by union 68
Osman, Arthur 120, 121, 274
INDEX 465
p
Page
Pacific Fishermen's Union 117
Page mine at Kellogg, Idaho 198, 209
Painters Union 90, 123
Pasche, Victor Adrian 266
Patterson, Judge 253
Peace and the U. N. (editorial) 43, 44
Penalties 70
I^eoples' Front Government 50
Perjury, crime of 226
Perlow, Max 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36-40, 43, 91, 94, 121, 122
Perlow, Victor . 56
Peters, J ^8
Pettibone 56
Pickering, John 384
Pittslmrgh Central Labor Union 6
Pitzelev, Melvin 15
Pizer, Morris 22-24, 26, 29-32, 34, 37, 39-43, 121-122
Polish Jewish Trade-Union 28
Political Action Committee 239
Political Affairs (magazine) 124
Political sabotage or political subversion 271
Potash, Irving 112
Potofsky, Jacob 121
Powers, Charles 57
Preamble to AFL constitution 359
Precision Scientific Co 145, 146, 151, 155, 157-159, 425, 429, 431, 432, 434,435
Pressman, Lee 33, 36, 56
Prompt Press 124
Quaker Liberal 4
Quill, Michael 121
Quote from Countryman statement 386
Quote, Supreme Court 396
R
Rabinowitz, Victor 116, 361
Radio Corporation of America 116, 189-191, 320, 344, 374
Radio talk by Jack Blackwell 202-207
Railroad brotherhoods 284
Rasmussen, Paul A 12, 13
Rathborne, Merwyn 114
RCA communications 115, 116, 189, 320
Record of CIO convention 269
Red China 126
Red Intiltration of Labor Unions, J. Edgar Hoover 315-319
Resolution on expulsion 51
Retail Drug Clerks, Local 1199 (membership, 6,000) 120
Reuther, Victor 35
Reuther, Walter 35, 123, 124
Reuther's Automobile Workers Union 35
RFC 249
Rhodes, Hon. John J ?
Robertson 117
Rockford Furniture Workers local 23, 27
Rockford Union organizing campaign 10
Roosevelt administration 365
Roosevelt, Mrs. E 11
Roosevelt, Franklin 14, 437
Rothstein, David 156
Ruben, J 42
Rumanian telephone system 362
Russell Sage Foundation IS, 19
Ryan, Joe 117
466 INDEX
s
Paet
S. 23 135, 144, 185, 229, 312, 313, 324, 343, 360, 384, 388, 390,
393 395 396 398 404—406
S. 1254 45, 50, 51, 59, 65-71, 79, 95, 135, 137, 181, 307, 314, 324,' 384, 406
S. 1254— Exhibit No. Ill 137-144
S. 1254— Exhibit No. IV 71-79
S. 1254— Exhibit No. V, An Analysis of the Contention That S. 1254 and
H. R. 3993 Constitute Thought-Control Legislation 79-84
S. 1606 45, 59, 65-67, 71, 95-97,
100, 105, 135, 136, 181, 311, 314, 324, 384, 402, 404, 406, 422, 423
S. 1606, analyzation 66-70
Sailors' Union, AFL 118
Sam Adams School 40
Savannah River project 147
Schneider, Jack 112
Scope of judicial review 69
Sears, Barnabas F., statement 163-168
Sears, Mr 427
Second World War 372
Section 9 (h), Taft-Hartley Act 88
Section 9 (h), Taft-Hartley Act insert 88
Section 1001, Title 18— Criminal Code 430
Security risks 304, 305
Selly, Joseph 114, 116, 274
Selly's prepared statement 325,336
Senate Labor Committee 51,194,223,229
Senate Labor Committee 1938 quote 238, 239
$750,000 from loyal workers going into Communist apparatus 304
Shepard, Paul J 266
Sherman, Harry Allen 271,272
Sherman, Henry 271
Shoshone County Anti-Communist Association, Inc 198
Siemens-Nazi firm 362
Siens, Herbert S 266
Sirota, Alex 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 122
Skinner, Albert 53, 57
Slichter, Prof. Sumner 322
Smerkin, George (also known as Stewart, George) 9,10,23,27,31,40,43
Smith Act (see also Alien Registration Act, 1940) 3,
123, 155, 162, 259, 408, 419, 420
Smith Act trial 112
Smulyan, Harry 38
Socialist Relief Committee 6
Socialist Party 3, 5, 6, 8-19
Social Miners Relief Fund 6
Sorrell, Herbert 89, 90, 92
Southern Tenant Farmers Union 19, 20
Soviet diplomats 188
Soviet-Nazi Pact 13, 30
Soviet Secret Police 42
Soviet textile factory in Leningrad 3
Spanish Civil War front 13
Speunenburg, Governor 56
Stabor, Alexander 271
Stachel, Jack 29, 30
Stalin 28
Stalinist 10
Stalin's heirs 43
Stanley, Admiral 28
Stark, Lou 21
State, County, and Municipal Workers Union 20
Statement :
George E. Bader 170-172
Joseph A. Beirne, president of Communications Workers of America,
CIO, re S. 1606, dated March 5, 1954 442-447
INDEX
467
statement of— ooo on!
Boulware, General Electric Co 288-294
CIO executive board on Butler-Goldwater-Velde bills (meeting of
March 22-23, 1954) 450-453
Vera Countryman 378-384
Fitzgerald 214-222
General Electric Co 288-294
International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers 410-417
Law department. National Association of Manufacturers 440-442
Barnabas F. Sears 163-168
Statement submitted on behalf on American Federation of Labor in re
S. 1606, S. 1254, S. 23, by Woll, Glenn & Thatcher, general counsel— 448-450
Statement :
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, UE 214-222
J. L. Wilcox 173, 174
Steel Workers Union 33, 34, 176
Steelman 88
Steinberg 116
Stern, Meyer 123
Stevens 262
Stewart, George (also known as George Smerkin) 9, 10, 23, 27. 31. 40, 43
Stewart-Warner 176-178, 255, 256
Stibnette mine 201
Stone, Ellery W 311, 312, 360, 362
Stone, Hedley 133
Stooge 25
Strass (also known as George Strassler) 43
Strassler, George (also known as Strass) 43
Strauss, Leon 112
Stumpf, Mayor 7
Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 102,
385-388, 390-392, 397, 402, 405, 407
Subversive Activities Control Board 47,
50, 59, 65-67, 95. 96, 131-133, 187, 188, 195, 245, 246, 348, 353, 355,
357, 384^88, 390-393, 396, 397, 401, 402, 405, 407.
Subversives 305
Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co 198
Sunshine Mining Co 198
Sylvania 253
Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (see also Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947
and National Labor Relations Act) 36,
38, 53, 55. 84, 86, 88, 94, 99, 101, 104, 105, 123, 128, 129, 131, 151,
153-155, 159, 176, 179, 183, 188, 189, 223, 233, 277, 281, 286, 801,
309, 311-313, 324, 336, 337, 342, 359, 402, 405, 420, 429-431.
Taft-Hartley Act, section 9 (h) 87, 88, 90,
92, 95, 128, 129, 131, 151, 152, 154, 155, 192-194, 196, 420, 42&-431
Taft-Hartley affidavit 40, 53, 112, 113, 122, 123, 128, 307, 431
Teamsters, AFL 124
Teamsters International Union 3,25
Telegram to Tom Clark and General Counsel Denham, June 6, 1949 37, 38
10-point program adopted by Cleveland convention, 1946 (statement) 58
Temporary National Economic Committee, quote 365
Textile Workers, CIO 4
30 mines and reduction plants in Idaho 207
Thomas, Norman 2, 3, 7, 13, 20
3.000 students enrolled, Jefferson School of Social Science 56
Timkin Roller Bearing Co 359
Tishler, Sol 122
Town Hall 8
Trade Union Educational League 22
Trade Union School at Harvard 34
Trade Union Unity League (TUUL) 22, 23, 43
Trans Furniture Co 41,42
Transfer 7,000-8,000 dues-paying members, UFWU to UIU 34
468 INDEX
Page
Transport Workers Union 121
Travis, Maurice (and/or Morris) 53, 56, 57, 111, 153, 161, 210, 267, 431
Travis, statement on signing Taft-Hartley affidavit (exhibit I) 53-55
Trotskyite 4
Trotskyist Communist 10, 13
Turtle Creek Valley — Pennsylvania local union dominating 25,000 em-
ployees 225
Two-tliirds members of UE, .$750,000 out of loyal workers' pockets 304
2,300 or 2,400 different independent unions 284
U
Union News (publication) 270,271
Union, The (pulilication), pase 8 of August 15, 1949, issue, marked "Ex-
hibit No. 1" (Travis statement on signing Taft-Hartley law affidavit)— 53, 55
Union trial procedures where communism is an issue 62-64
Unions and affiliates :
Agriculture Workers Union 19, 20, 24
Amalgamated 15, 28
Amalgamated Clothing Workers 121
American Communications Association (ACA) 114-116, 119, 188-192,
274, 320-322, 324, 340, 345-347, 352, 353, 361-363, 370-372. 374
American Federation of Labor (AFL) 1,6,14,
16-17, 19-28. 90-91. 93-95, 111-112. 114, 115. 118, 119, 123, 124, 176,
179, ISO, 186, 190, 201, 284, 306, 359, 370, 427.
American Eadio Association, CIO 116
American Radio Telegraphists Association 114
Auto Workers, CIO 35
Auto Workers Local 35,36
Auto Workers T^nion 35
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 17
Canada Seamen's Union 155
Carpenters' Union, AFL 23
Chemical Workers, AFL 12
Chicago Federation of Labor 16
Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL 114, 116
Communications Workers of America, CIO 442
CIO 14-16,
1^21, 24-28, 30-39, 41, 43, 51, 52, 56-57. 64 90, 93-95, 110-125, 127-
128, 147. 152, 170. 178, 183, 188-190, 196, 201, 208, 212, 213. 223,
227-229, 245, 246, 254, 259, 268, 269, 271-273, 277, 281, 284, 285, 296,
299. 300, 306, 353, 359, 370, 371, 404, 405.
Detroit Local 600 35
Dinins Car Workers Union 119
DPOWA 119-121, 274
District Council 3 285
District 50, organization 38
District 65 121
Drug Clerks local 120
European unions 28
Electrical Workers, Local Union 1031 153
Federal Unions 21
Food, Agricultural and Allied Workers 120
Food and Agricultural Workers Organization 20
Ford Local 600 35
Fur and Leather Workers 111, 113, 114
Fur Workers 91, 112, 114
Fur Workers Industrial Union 111
Furniture Union 25
Furniture Woodworkers Union 23, 26
Furniture Workers Industrial Union 22, 23
Furniture Workers Union 20, 21, 26, 32-38
Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, AFL 4, 8, 42, 119
Illinois Workers Alliance, IWA 11, 44
lAM 176, 185
IBEW 176, 179, 180, 185, 186, 255, 427
INDEX 469
Unions and affiliates— Continued ^*"
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 148, 151, 179
International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL 124
International Labor and Socialist Lyceum 4
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union 42, 123
jL|_- 241
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union 117, 274, 349
lUE — 131, 176, 257, 306
International Union of Electrical Workers, CIO 110
International Union Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers 53,
64, 146, 169, 200, 201, 418, 425, 428, 438
International Woodworkers of America 32, 39, 88
IWW 89
Jewelry Workers Local No. 1 124
Local i 124, 421
Local 14, at Wallace 201, 202, 208
Local 16 397
Local 18, at Kellogg 201, 208
Local 76 41
Local 76. New York 39
Local 100 421
Local 140 41, 42, 122
Local 506 271
Local 508 270
Local 576 41
Local 600, Detroit 35
Local 758 418, 421, 425, 427, 428, 438
Local 1031. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers— 151, 179, 427
Local 1154 UE 177, 179, 186
Local 1199 120
Local Union 1031, Electrical Workers 153
Marine Cooks and Stewards Union, CIO 117, 118, 132
Metal Workers Industrial Union 110
Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers Union 52, 5&-59
111, 146, 148, 151, 153, 156, 158. 161, 176, 177, 201, 207-210, 267,
418, 424, 425, 428, 430, 432, 434-437.
National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers 276, 277, 285
National Furniture Workers Industrial Union 22
National Maritime Union 118, 121, 125, 133
National Miners Union 5, 6
Needle Trades Industrial Union 23
Pacific Fishermen's Union 117
Painter's Union 90, 123
Pittsburgh Central Labor Union 6
Polish Jewish Trade Union 28
Railroad brotherhoods 284
Retail Drug Clerks' Local 1199 120
Reuther's Automobile Workers Union 35
Rockford Furniture Workers' Local 23, 27
Sailor's Union, AFL 118
Southern Tenant Farmers' Union 19, 20
State. County, and Mimicipal Workers Union 20
Steel Workers Union 33, 34, 176
Teamsters. AFL ^ 124
Teamsters International Union 3,25
Textile Workers, CIO 4
Trade Union Educational League (set up by W. Z. Foster per orders
from Moscow; became TUUL) 22
Trade Union Unity League (TUUL) 22, 23, 43
Transport Workers Union 121
UAW 176
United Brewery Workers 124
United Cannery, Agriculture. Packing and Allied Workers 17, 18
United Electrical Workers (UE) 38,
59, 91, 110-113, 119, 131, 177-179, 186, 187, 213, 214, 223, 225,
228, 232 233, 242, 243. 247, 249-251, 253, 254, 257, 262-264,
266, 268-271, 295, 299, 301-306, 311.
470 INDEX
Unions and affiliates — Continued I'aM
United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America 59, 214
United Federal Workers 20, 127
United Furniture Workers of America 29, 30, 42
United Furniture Workers Union 9, 24, 27-30, 32-34, 36-39, 41, 43, 121
United Mine, Mill and Smelter 148. 150
United Mine Workers (UMW) 17, 36, 38
United Office and Professional Workers Union 16-18, 119, 120
United Packinghouse Workers 122, 123, 277, 281, 284, 285
United Public Workers 113
United Steel Workers 19
Upholsterers International Union 15, 20-24, 29-31, 34, 37, 38
Upholsterers International Union of North America, AFL 1, 2
Upholsterers Local 76-B of New York 23-25, 27, 30, 31
Western Federation of Miners 111, 201, 239
Unions with constitutions barring Communists from office or membership,
exhibit No. II 61
UAW 176
United Brewery Workers 124
Ignited Cannery. Agriculture, Packing and Allied Workers 17, 18
UE bargaining rights for over 200,000 111
UB bargains for 40.000 out of 240,000 GE employees 301, 302, 304
UE claimed 600,000 members 110
UB 300,000 232, 268, 273
United Elertrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America 59, 214
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America — UE
(Fitzgerald's statement) 214-222
United Electrical Workers (UE) 38,
59, 91, 110-113, 119, 131, 177-179, 186, 187, 213, 214, 223, 225. 228,
232, 233, 242, 243, 247, 249-251, 253, 254, 257, 262-264, 266, 268-
271, 295, 299, 301-306, 311.
United Federal Workers 20, 127
United Furniture Workers of America 29, 30, 42
United Furniture Workers Press 43
United Furniture Workers Union 9, 24, 27-30, 32-34, 36-39, 41, 43, 121
United Mine, Mill and Smelter 148. 150
United i\Iine Workers (UMW) 17, 36, 38
United Nations 42
UNRRA 6
United Office and Professional Workers Union 16-18, 119-120
United Packinghouse Workers 122, 123, 277, 281, 284, 285
United Public Workers 113
United States Chamber of Commerce statement re CIO 359
United States Code Congressional Service, volume 2, 81st Congress, 2d
session, page 3886 46
United States-Russian relations 28
United Steel Workers 19
Universitv of Pittsburgh 3. 4, 7, 42
Upholsterers International Union 15. 20-24, 29-31, 34, 37, 38
Upholsterers International Union of North America, AFL 1. 2
Upholsterers Local of New York, 76-B 23-25, 27, 30-31
"Vandals in furniture factory. New York Times clipping 41, 42
Van Kleek, Mary 18, 19
W
Wadleigh, .Tulian 127
AVage scales 374
Wacrner Act 86, 87, 96, 99, 301, 324, 336, 369, 437
Wallace. Kellogs, and Mullan 200
Walsh-Healey Act 106
Warburg units 145
Ware 56
Ware-Aht-Witt group 56
Warne, Coleston E . 7
INDEX 471
Faga
Warner 155
Warner-Pinta letter 427
Weber, Joseph 15, 16
Webster, Capt. E. N 371
West Virginia-Ohio Miners Relief Committee 7
Western Federation of Miners, CIO 111, 201, 239
Western Union Telegraph 114-
116, 189-192, 320, 344, 358, 360, 361, 363, 364, 366, 374
Westinghouse 111, 186, 253
Westrick, Gerhardt Alois 362
Wheeler, George S 10
White, Harry Dexter 400, 401
White House 12
White, Ina 18
Wilcox 366, 369
Wilcox, J. L., statement 173, 174, 369
Wilcox statement re Butler bill 358
Wilkes, Phil 208
Willkie, Wendell 28
Wilson 53
Wilson, Harvey 199
Wilson, Harvey, letter re Blackwell, broadcast, etc 199, 200
Witt, Nathan 53, 56, 58, 59, 156, 208
WoU, Glenn, and Thatcher, general council, AFL, re S. 1606, S. 1254,
S. 23 448, 450
Woltman, Frederick 3
Woodworkers 21
Woodworkers Union 23
Workers Alliance 11, 12, 14
World War I _ __ 56
WPA 14
Y
Young People's Socialist League 8-10
Yugoslav 16
Z
Zeno, Mr. (professional labor spy) 4
Zide, Abraham ~ 49
o
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05445 4531
Boston Public Library
Central Library, Copley Square
Division of
Reference and Research Services
Social Sciences
Department
The Date Due Card in the pocket indi-
cates the date on or before which this
book should be returned to the Library.
Please do not remove cards from this
pocket.
FEB 1 8 1S58
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11